From Hell's Bible, pinoy version
***
AS I watched Christ's faithful gather symbolically in the Upper Room on Holy Thursday, around Calvary's cross on Good Friday, and at the empty tomb on Easter Sunday, a wave of joy flowed over me. [I think he is talking about the Paschal Triduum Liturgy.] Swept up like a chip of wood on the surface of a boiling wave by the power of the community singing, I recalled the unity in faith and hope of the millions who gathered 25 years ago at Edsa. [What now?] But still there was an undercurrent of sadness, sadness due to the realization that the official Church no longer stands with a united people but with one part of a nation divided; and that the struggle is carried on, no longer in the respectful manner of the crowds at Edsa, but in an atmosphere of personal animosity and demonizing. [Wow! There goes the twist there folks! From the Bible, to Edsa to RH. Geez! The Church tells a 'united people' that this bill is nothing but EVIL, the priest is SAD? And the Church is demonizing? What do you call Lucifer? Fallen Angel? Isn't that the same as DEVIL? The semantics of Vatican II is really killing me.]
The sadness is made deeper by the sense that in the debate over the RH bill, the Church seems to have backed itself into a no-win situation. ["And I tell you, not even the Gates of Hell shall prevail against it." I think Fr. Caroll is such a strategist, aint he?] If the bill passes over the total opposition of the hierarchy, there will be gloating in some quarters and a sense of "Who's afraid of the big bad Church?" If it is defeated by the opposition of the Church, I fear a powerful backlash at the Church's "interference in politics" and " "reliance on political power rather than moral suasion:the beginnings of an anticlericalism such as has overwhelmed formerly Catholic bastions such as Spain and Ireland. [Now hold on to your socks there. The position of the Church against artificial contraception has long been "defeated". Practically the whole world has permitted artificial contraception even the Philippines. It is legal here. Did the Church get any backlash? Nope. When did anticlericalism start? Was it after Humanae Vitae or was it even when Her Founder was still physically with us? Masons have long been against the Church. Atheists have long been against the Church as do Communists and radical Muslims. The doomsday prophecy of Fr. Caroll is completely absurd, as absurd as how pro-RH people are saying "Majority of Catholics are pro-RH so the bishops should listen." Artificial contraception is COMPLETELY NON_NEGOTIABLE. Do you get that Father Caroll?]
With all due respect for the position of the Philippine bishops, [They expect not only the due respect that you just gave, but your due OBEDIENCE which Jesuits do not even know anymore!] I do not see that total opposition to the bill necessary, once one gets past the polemics. First of all, the bill does not legalize contraceptives; they are already legal and may be purchased in any drugstore. What the bill proposes to do "rightly or wrongly" is to subsidize the cost of contraception as well as natural family planning to the poor. [I have read both versions of the Bill from the House and from the Senate and there is no mention whatsoever about it being for the POOR! This is absurd!] Neither does the bill legalize abortion; on the contrary it reaffirms the constitutional prohibition. It is highly probable in fact that if contraceptives become more available to the poor, the scandalous number of illegal abortions performed annually will be dramatically reduced. [because this intelligent priest does not even care to read the mechanism of action of OCPs which is to thin the lining of the uterine wall, which makes it hard for a fertilized ovum (which is in fact a human being) to stick and survive. So when you kill a 1 week old human baby, what do you call that? But this intelligent Jesuit does not even listen to this reason. Because he is a Jesuit and he is intelligent.]
On the tricky scientific question whether the IUD and some contraceptive pills may prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum in the mother's womb and so destroy a human life, the current draft of the bill passes the responsibility to the Food and Drug Administration, which should ban any such contraceptives from drugstores throughout the country. [The literature is available! Good grief! Wait for a government agency that does not even do its job?!? Remember folks, the FDA is under the pro-RH Department of Health!]
[And on this part, he takes the position of the bishops. Really, wacky if you ask me. Firing at the bishops on the other hand, then conceding on the other.]
On the matter of sex education in the schools, the same draft allows parents to "opt out" for their children, i.e. to have them exempted from such classes. This is an improvement, although it would seem better to allow religious schools to develop their own programs. It may be still possible to negotiate for this. There is a graded set of modules on sex and population education already available, prepared by teachers of Catholic schools under the leadership of the Office of Population Studies Foundation of the University of San Carlos, and bearing the imprimatur of Ricardo Cardinal Vidal.
Other improvements may still be possible. One might be to strengthen the "conscience clauses" protecting health workers and teachers whose religious values conflict with certain aspects of the bill. Another could be representation of religious bodies on an oversight committee to make sure that freedom of conscience is fully respected in the field.
A sticking point for many is that the bill would subsidize the distribution of contraceptives to the poor. [As I said, the Bill does not mention the poor. So even those who have the resources to get their own contraceptives, can get these for free under the Bill!] The Catholic Church, while recognizing the fundamental moral difference between contraception and abortion, still insists that the former is wrong. It debases the most sacred act which a husband and wife can perform: cooperation with the Creator in bringing into existence a new human person destined for eternity with God. [TRUE RIGHT YOU ARE FATHER!] Here it would seem more consistent for the Church to initiate a vigorous program of family life and natural family planning education for its people, helping them to form their consciences and make responsible decisions on this matter, rather than trying by political means to keep them away from temptation. [I hope each parish and diocese does this! One of my frustrations actually. But...but... Father Caroll does not say if he is against artificial contraception. Well, just asking.]
Which brings up what to me seems to be the most important issue here, namely, the family and family values. [hold on folks!] The charge is made that the RH bill will destroy the Filipino family. On the basis of more than 25 years of pastoral and social work in Payatas, [we don't have that, so we better shut up?] and some seven years sponsoring natural family planning programs, I can say that the family is already at great risk and not because of contraceptives. [wow! Great math there! It is almost the same as saying that "Filipino families are already threated by mistresses so outlawing brothels would not do much."]
While the dedication of many young people - our scholars and former scholars - to helping their families, and the sacrifices that they are willing to make, are sometimes overwhelming, these are often one-parent families abandoned by the fathers who have gone on to father second and even third families. Or no-parent families abandoned by both father and mother and being raised by grandparents. Moreover, one main reason why only some 20 percent of the women who take our seminars on natural family planning actually practice it is precisely the unwillingness of the husbands to cooperate. [So, RH is the solution? It would even make matters worse since artificial contraception does not even take into consideration of the woman wants to copulate or not! That is the beauty of natural family planning! The sexual act is done with the mutual consent of two loving heterosexual married couple, putting into consideration the body of the woman!]
Our family-life seminars seem to be much appreciated. If only the effort and resources being now invested in opposition to the RH bill were being used for serious family-life education and family support services, [we are using resources?! Wow! I did not know that?! Better get my paycheck.] there might be little reason to oppose the bill. And our Holy Week services might be true celebrations of unity, mutual respect and love. [Uh....what?!]
***
Typical Jesuit arrogance.
Paints more gray areas than clear ones.
Catholics, both laity and clergy, are NOT TO SUPPORT A BILL THAT WILL LEGALIZE PUBLICLY FUNDED CONTRACEPTION.
Fr. Caroll has raised practical pieces of advice on educating the public about NFP and how the Church can join in. BUT!
The way he laments how he educates the women and the husbands do not cooperate, shows a hint of desperation that he is willing to bite the bullet and give artificial contraceptives just to get the job done in Payatas where he has been working.
And at the end of the article, whether you are pro or anti, you would agree that this priest supports RH.
Shame on someone who is on the twilight of his life!
Repent before it is too late!
The blog of a group of Filipino Catholics and their frank commentary on anything that affects their lives as a citizen of the Philippines and as a Roman Catholics.
Friday, September 30, 2011
How Mass was celebrated for the Feast of San Lorenzo in his Basilica
From CathNews
***
MORE than 1,000 people gathered in Manila’s Chinatown Wednesday for a wreath-laying ceremony and Mass in memory of the only Filipino saint, Lorenzo Ruiz. [That did not sound right, did it? A saint whose memorial is celebrated especially on a BASILICA dedicated to him, does not have a Mass in his memory! Sound like a Mass for a person who is not even a saint! And wreath laying?!? What's this Independence Day?!]
Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales of Manila led the commemoration of the feast of Saint Ruiz, patron saint of Chinese-Filipinos, at the saint’s Minor Basilica in Manila’s Binondo district.
Cardinal Rosales praised the life of the “extraordinary” saint. “This is his home town. He grew up in this church where he befriended God as an altar server for Dominican priests ministering to the Chinese,” he said in his homily.
“He was accused of a crime he did not commit. He was scared so he fled and joined Dominican missionaries abroad. But he never realized what awaited him in a foreign land,” Cardinal Rosales said.
“Blessed are those who seek nothing but God. We should befriend God just like how Saint Lorenzo did,” he added.
Local government officials and members of the Chinese-Filipino community attended the Eucharistic Celebration concelebrated by 22 priests.
Filipinos of Chinese ancestry represent about one percent of the Philippine population of 90 million, according to Jesuit priest Aristotle Dy.
Monsignor Geronimo Reyes, parish priest and rector of the Minor Basilica, said the celebration is a good opportunity to reflect on the life and martyrdom of the Filipino saint.
“Before his death he was asked by the executioner whether he wanted to live and to be with family. He said, ‘Yes.’ The executioner had one condition, ‘Just renounce your faith and destroy this statue of the Blessed Mother.’ Lorenzo said, ‘I can never renounce my faith. Even if I have a thousand lives, I would offer them over and over to God,” said Reyes.
Reyes said the saint’s martyrdom became a symbol of faith in God. “In that act of offering his life, there lies the supreme act of love for God.” [He followed Christ all the way to the cross!]
Reyes said the Philippines will most probably have more saints but “their papers are still being processed.” [The diocesan processes here are very slow! Maybe because of documentation or the tribunal is not working double time?]
***
St. Lorenzo Ruiz is our first kababayan to be raised to the honors of the altar in the Universal Church. How did your parish celebrate the day?
***
MORE than 1,000 people gathered in Manila’s Chinatown Wednesday for a wreath-laying ceremony and Mass in memory of the only Filipino saint, Lorenzo Ruiz. [That did not sound right, did it? A saint whose memorial is celebrated especially on a BASILICA dedicated to him, does not have a Mass in his memory! Sound like a Mass for a person who is not even a saint! And wreath laying?!? What's this Independence Day?!]
Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales of Manila led the commemoration of the feast of Saint Ruiz, patron saint of Chinese-Filipinos, at the saint’s Minor Basilica in Manila’s Binondo district.
Cardinal Rosales praised the life of the “extraordinary” saint. “This is his home town. He grew up in this church where he befriended God as an altar server for Dominican priests ministering to the Chinese,” he said in his homily.
“He was accused of a crime he did not commit. He was scared so he fled and joined Dominican missionaries abroad. But he never realized what awaited him in a foreign land,” Cardinal Rosales said.
“Blessed are those who seek nothing but God. We should befriend God just like how Saint Lorenzo did,” he added.
Local government officials and members of the Chinese-Filipino community attended the Eucharistic Celebration concelebrated by 22 priests.
Filipinos of Chinese ancestry represent about one percent of the Philippine population of 90 million, according to Jesuit priest Aristotle Dy.
Monsignor Geronimo Reyes, parish priest and rector of the Minor Basilica, said the celebration is a good opportunity to reflect on the life and martyrdom of the Filipino saint.
“Before his death he was asked by the executioner whether he wanted to live and to be with family. He said, ‘Yes.’ The executioner had one condition, ‘Just renounce your faith and destroy this statue of the Blessed Mother.’ Lorenzo said, ‘I can never renounce my faith. Even if I have a thousand lives, I would offer them over and over to God,” said Reyes.
Reyes said the saint’s martyrdom became a symbol of faith in God. “In that act of offering his life, there lies the supreme act of love for God.” [He followed Christ all the way to the cross!]
Reyes said the Philippines will most probably have more saints but “their papers are still being processed.” [The diocesan processes here are very slow! Maybe because of documentation or the tribunal is not working double time?]
***
St. Lorenzo Ruiz is our first kababayan to be raised to the honors of the altar in the Universal Church. How did your parish celebrate the day?
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Chupungco: Inculturation does not create new rites
Almost forgot about this.
Thanks Cntnl!
From Catholic Sentinel
***
The Catholic Church is an international body and its liturgy naturally reflects the fact. That's one message from Father Anscar Chupungco, a Filipino Benedictine who has for decades been writing about the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on Liturgy. [And for Fr. Anscar, the only document that matters. He hates Summorum Pontificum by the way. He does not even want to write about it. Why? He can't write nor sell books about it. Just my opinion. Ha!]
Father Anscar, who will speak in Portland next month at a national meeting of diocesan liturgical commissions, says inculturation in liturgy does not create new rites, but translates the Roman liturgy into the culture of local churches. [Rubbish! His Misa ng Sambayang Pilipino is a completely inculturated and a completely different liturgy! What he talks about "translates the Roman liturgy into the culture of the local churches" is EXACTLY what is being done to ALL ORDINARY FORM MASSES throughout the world! Never has inculturation been envisioned by the Council Fathers of Vatican 2! Never was inculturation even considered by the Council Fathers of Vatican 2! Then where the hell did this all started? TO SELL BOOKS, maybe?]
"The sound tradition of the Roman liturgy is the basis of legitimate progress that inculturation seeks to achieve," Father Anscar has said. He is seen as the father of liturgy in The Philippines. [No siree! He was never considered that way. Only his students call him that. They even have an ORDER named after him. Right, Dave?]
The meeting is set for Oct. 10-15 at the Doubletree Hotel Portland Lloyd Center. With the theme, "Strangers No Longer in the Household of God," participants will examine the relationship of culture and liturgy. Church liturgists will ask how Catholics of many cultures gather, tell stories, share gifts, celebrate and go forth. [Eng?]
"When we are celebrating the liturgy, we are thinking about everyone in the church, not just our parish. It's the body of Christ and the body of Christ is diverse," says Michael Prendergast, a Portland liturgist and conference organizer. [And?]
"We have to emerge from stereotypes [feminist alert!] and find how we can interact with people who are different as human beings. If you can't do it at church, where can you do it?" says Providence Sister Jeremy Gallet, another organizer and head liturgist for the Archdiocese of Portland. [No wonder.]
During the conference, Father Anscar will receive an award for contribiutions [sic] to litutgical [sic] life. He has taught in Rome. [I have a million and one things Fr. Anscar contributed to our litutgical life.]
Also speaking during the week will be Jesuit Father Allan Figueroa Deck, executive director of the U.S. Catholic bishops' Secretariat of Cultural Diversity; St. Anne Sister Kateri Mitchell, executive director of the National Tekakwitha Conference; Paulist Father Ricky Manalo, a liturgist and composer; and Sister Marie Lumas, a Sister of Social Service who teaches religious education and culture at the Franciscan School of Theology in Berkeley, Calif.
An opening day prayer [Not Mass. Just a prayer. And this is a gathering of liturgists folks!] will be hosted by St. Andrew Parish in Northeast Portland and a Thursday Mass is set for St. Mary Cathedral.
From 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on Saturday, Oct. 15, parish liturgists, other leaders, youths and people in the pew are invited to come for learning and discussion. Father Anscar will speak that day. Smaller discussion groups with local experts will take up topics such as ancient prophets and contemporary culture, intercultural ministry, the folk Mass revolution, Our Lady of Guadalupe, liturgical catechesis for receiving the New Roman Missal and music for multicultural assemblies. [You'll get catechesis about the New Missal from the same guy who publicly derided it?!]
The gathering is co-sponsored by the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions — a grassroots [wow! for the people!] Catholic organization — and the U.S. bishops' Committee on Divine Worship. The last time the national meeting was held in the Northwest was in 1997 in Seattle.
The Portland conference will focus on the experience of multiculturalism in the church. The 2012 meeting in San Jose, Calif. will highlight the church's response to diversity of cultures. Organizers chose the west coast as an apt location to discuss inculturation, because of the diversity in the Catholic dioceses of the region, which have Native American, Hispanic and Asian influences.
***
This news actually raised more questions than answers.
And certainly raises more suspicion!
Can't help it. With all the awards and claim to fame that this monk has, WHAT HAS HE DONE TO STOP LITURGICAL ABUSE IN THE PHILIPPINES?
And secondly, HE HAS PUBLICLY DISOBEYED AND DISSENTED AGAINST THE HOLY FATHER BY STIFLING THE WISHES OF THOSE WHO WANTED TO CELEBRATE THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF THE ROMAN RITE IN THE MANILA CATHEDRAL!
So, honestly, I don't hold this man in high esteem as a liturgist.
Thanks Cntnl!
From Catholic Sentinel
***
The Catholic Church is an international body and its liturgy naturally reflects the fact. That's one message from Father Anscar Chupungco, a Filipino Benedictine who has for decades been writing about the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on Liturgy. [And for Fr. Anscar, the only document that matters. He hates Summorum Pontificum by the way. He does not even want to write about it. Why? He can't write nor sell books about it. Just my opinion. Ha!]
Father Anscar, who will speak in Portland next month at a national meeting of diocesan liturgical commissions, says inculturation in liturgy does not create new rites, but translates the Roman liturgy into the culture of local churches. [Rubbish! His Misa ng Sambayang Pilipino is a completely inculturated and a completely different liturgy! What he talks about "translates the Roman liturgy into the culture of the local churches" is EXACTLY what is being done to ALL ORDINARY FORM MASSES throughout the world! Never has inculturation been envisioned by the Council Fathers of Vatican 2! Never was inculturation even considered by the Council Fathers of Vatican 2! Then where the hell did this all started? TO SELL BOOKS, maybe?]
"The sound tradition of the Roman liturgy is the basis of legitimate progress that inculturation seeks to achieve," Father Anscar has said. He is seen as the father of liturgy in The Philippines. [No siree! He was never considered that way. Only his students call him that. They even have an ORDER named after him. Right, Dave?]
The meeting is set for Oct. 10-15 at the Doubletree Hotel Portland Lloyd Center. With the theme, "Strangers No Longer in the Household of God," participants will examine the relationship of culture and liturgy. Church liturgists will ask how Catholics of many cultures gather, tell stories, share gifts, celebrate and go forth. [Eng?]
"When we are celebrating the liturgy, we are thinking about everyone in the church, not just our parish. It's the body of Christ and the body of Christ is diverse," says Michael Prendergast, a Portland liturgist and conference organizer. [And?]
"We have to emerge from stereotypes [feminist alert!] and find how we can interact with people who are different as human beings. If you can't do it at church, where can you do it?" says Providence Sister Jeremy Gallet, another organizer and head liturgist for the Archdiocese of Portland. [No wonder.]
During the conference, Father Anscar will receive an award for contribiutions [sic] to litutgical [sic] life. He has taught in Rome. [I have a million and one things Fr. Anscar contributed to our litutgical life.]
Also speaking during the week will be Jesuit Father Allan Figueroa Deck, executive director of the U.S. Catholic bishops' Secretariat of Cultural Diversity; St. Anne Sister Kateri Mitchell, executive director of the National Tekakwitha Conference; Paulist Father Ricky Manalo, a liturgist and composer; and Sister Marie Lumas, a Sister of Social Service who teaches religious education and culture at the Franciscan School of Theology in Berkeley, Calif.
An opening day prayer [Not Mass. Just a prayer. And this is a gathering of liturgists folks!] will be hosted by St. Andrew Parish in Northeast Portland and a Thursday Mass is set for St. Mary Cathedral.
From 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on Saturday, Oct. 15, parish liturgists, other leaders, youths and people in the pew are invited to come for learning and discussion. Father Anscar will speak that day. Smaller discussion groups with local experts will take up topics such as ancient prophets and contemporary culture, intercultural ministry, the folk Mass revolution, Our Lady of Guadalupe, liturgical catechesis for receiving the New Roman Missal and music for multicultural assemblies. [You'll get catechesis about the New Missal from the same guy who publicly derided it?!]
The gathering is co-sponsored by the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions — a grassroots [wow! for the people!] Catholic organization — and the U.S. bishops' Committee on Divine Worship. The last time the national meeting was held in the Northwest was in 1997 in Seattle.
The Portland conference will focus on the experience of multiculturalism in the church. The 2012 meeting in San Jose, Calif. will highlight the church's response to diversity of cultures. Organizers chose the west coast as an apt location to discuss inculturation, because of the diversity in the Catholic dioceses of the region, which have Native American, Hispanic and Asian influences.
***
This news actually raised more questions than answers.
And certainly raises more suspicion!
Can't help it. With all the awards and claim to fame that this monk has, WHAT HAS HE DONE TO STOP LITURGICAL ABUSE IN THE PHILIPPINES?
And secondly, HE HAS PUBLICLY DISOBEYED AND DISSENTED AGAINST THE HOLY FATHER BY STIFLING THE WISHES OF THOSE WHO WANTED TO CELEBRATE THE EXTRAORDINARY FORM OF THE ROMAN RITE IN THE MANILA CATHEDRAL!
So, honestly, I don't hold this man in high esteem as a liturgist.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
San Lorenzo Ruiz de Manila, pray for the Philippines!
Governor: If we grant you life, will you renounce your faith?
Lorenzo: That I will never do, because I am a Christian, and I shall die for God, and for him I will give many
thousands of lives if I had them. And so, do with me as you please.
***
With how the pro-abortion RH people fighting hard to change how we live our lives...we might as well say.
LAGMAN, GARIN,DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, PIA CAYETANO:***
If we PASS THE RH BILL, will you renounce your faith?
PINOY CATHOLICS: That I will never do, because I am a Christian, and I shall die for God, and for him I will give many thousands of lives if I had them. And so, do with me as you please.
Dear San Lorenzo, pray for your dear country! Pray for the Filipino Family!
PS: The painting above is commissioned for the ordination of Fr. Lawrence Lew, OP of New Liturgical Movement. You may read more about it here.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Make sure you vote these legislators AGAIN!
Thank goodness for these brave young ones!
First term congressmen who stood up for what is right and logical!
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that the P3billion proposed budget to purchase artificial contraceptives would be of better use for building new hospitals and providing education for the youth and the poor!
Fr. Bernas sets the record straight, HUH?!
Really?
Did he?
Uhm....
Let's read.
Taken from his blog.
***
I use the phrase family planning because it is a phrase that covers a broad spectrum of ways of limiting the number of children. It can include abstention from sexual congress intended to beget children. It can include what are called natural methods of preventing conception. It can include artificial means of preventing conception. It also includes abortion. All these contribute to the reduction and regulation of the number of the children that are brought into this world.
In the current debate brought about by the introduction of the RH Bill the question of what is anti-life comes up. It is therefore important to be able to clarify what precisely is meant by being anti-life. In the current debate the phrase anti-life is often used in the most pejorative way. It is used in the sense of being against existing life. Murder, in other words. [How could it not be? You plan the death of another person, isn't that murder? How else would you want to call it? Homicide? Parricide?]
But it can also be understood to mean not being willing or not desiring to add more human life to the already crowded population. [If you live in a crowded place, it is crowded but if you live in Mindanao, skip, hop and jump to your hearts delight!] This would be the stance of a married couple who decide to abstain from the acts that bring about life. To a certain extent this is also the stance of a young man who chooses a celibate life not because he hates children but out of a conviction that he can accomplish better what he feels he is called to do without the burden of raising children. [He is speaking about the consecrated life.] Definitely I would not categorize such persons as being anti-life. [Uhm...neither do the pro-lifers. This is a different thing.] They love life so much that they take it upon themselves to contribute in some way or other to the improvement of the quality of life of those who are already born.
We come now to contraception. Is contraception anti-life in the sense of being directed at actual life? The phrase anti-life is an active and not a passive word. The word “anti” in compound word is an active word aimed at life. Thus we must ask when life begins, because before life begins it is beyond the reach of anti-life action.
When does life begin? For me, the starting point in dealing with this very specific question is what the Constitution says. [Oh brother! He asks a scientific question and read a legal document to answer it.] It says that the state “shall protect the life of the unborn from conception.” What this means, in the understanding of the men and women who wrote that Constitution, is that life begins at conception, that is, upon fertilization. [At least he is truthful about it here. He knows this for a fact since he is one of the framers of our present Constitution.] Before fertilization there is no life. This is also the view of the Philippine Medical Society and this is the view of John Paul II. John Paul II says that life is so important that we should not do anything that will endanger it. We would be taking at least a very serious risk against life if we terminate development after fertilization.
What this means is that one who practices abstention is not anti-life. The celibate who gives up procreation for a higher calling is not anti-life. The use of contraceptive devises that only prevents fertilization is not anti-life in the sense of being an act of murder. [Now hold on to your horses. He is tacitly saying that is you use condoms, which prevents the sperm from meeting the egg, then it is not anti-life. Correct, right? Well, how about Humanae Vitae? Ahhhhhh.....now that is where things change, ain't it?] Abortion, in the sense of expulsion of the fertilized ovum at any time after fertilization is anti-life, is abortion and is an act of murder. If life of the unborn is terminated at a stage of viability the crime is infanticide. For that reason the Penal Code and also the proposed RH Bill prohibits and penalizes abortion and infanticide. [Uhm, no. The House version of the RH Bill does not say so.]
I have heard it loosely said that what are being marketed as contraception devices are in fact abortive devices. This is loose talk. If there are such abortive devices being marketed, they should be identified scientifically, not by gossip, and withdrawn from the market. [They have been identified oh Father! Try getting out more often. You want a copy of the studies? Simple fact is that one of the mechanisms of action of OCPs is the prevention of a fertilized ovum from being implanted. So what do you call that? Will you see the answers for that in the Constitution? Guess not. Just saying because you like to quote and use the Constitution.] The Food and Drug Administration has the responsibility of ensuring that no abortifacient drugs be marketed. [But the DOH is pro-RH and the DOH is the head agency overseeing the FDA. So what do you make of that?!] I know of one drug which was withdrawn from the market after being proved before the FDA to be abortifacient. This was the subject of a thesis of a student of mine which she defended, as required for graduation from the Ateneo Law School, before a panel of professors. [AND THAT WAS A LONG TIME AGO.]
Having said all this I must also put on my hat as priest of the Catholic Church. I accept the teaching of the Catholic Church which prohibits not only abortion but also artificial contraception. Yet one might say that through this article I am in fact approving artificial contraception. [Oh yes you do evern if you are wearing THAT hat!] I am not doing such a thing. Aside from being a Catholic priest in good standing I am also a lawyer and teacher and student of Constitutional Law. [I don't thing he is not that GOOD in standing now he created such a headache with his flip-flopping articles!] What I am doing is to place all this in the context of our constitutionally mandated pluralistic society. [WHAT HAPPENED TO THE HAT?!?!] Not all citizens of the Philippines are Catholics. [We're not idiots. Don't keep on saying that. But I think he forgot that majority of Filipinos are Catholics and that this is a democracy where the majority rules, isn't it?] Many of them therefore do not consider artificial contraception immoral or anti-life. [Based on the Bible of SWS.] The teaching of my Church is that I must respect the belief of other religions even if I do not agree with them. [He conveniently leaves out the teaching of his Church about artificial contraceptives, and he does not give a strong stance against it.] That is how Catholics and non-Catholics can live together in harmony. [In the age of Aquarius!!! lalalalala!!!] The alternative, which God forbid, is the restoration of the Inquisition.
26 September 2011
***
Ever heard the evil of relativism?
Fr. Bernas is a perfect example of this.
What will Fr. Bernas say about the proposed divorce law or the gay "marriage" law?
I am pretty sure he will say:
"Having said all this I must also put on my hat as priest of the Catholic Church. I accept the teaching of the Catholic Church...What I am doing is to place all this in the context of our constitutionally mandated pluralistic society."
Such a genius!
He wears the hat of the Catholic priest yet acts like a Mason! Religion does not matter!
Wanna send this post to the Holy See, Fr. Bernas?
Maybe he really needs a sampling of the Inquisition.
You asked for it Fr. Bernas!
Did he?
Uhm....
Let's read.
Taken from his blog.
***
I use the phrase family planning because it is a phrase that covers a broad spectrum of ways of limiting the number of children. It can include abstention from sexual congress intended to beget children. It can include what are called natural methods of preventing conception. It can include artificial means of preventing conception. It also includes abortion. All these contribute to the reduction and regulation of the number of the children that are brought into this world.
In the current debate brought about by the introduction of the RH Bill the question of what is anti-life comes up. It is therefore important to be able to clarify what precisely is meant by being anti-life. In the current debate the phrase anti-life is often used in the most pejorative way. It is used in the sense of being against existing life. Murder, in other words. [How could it not be? You plan the death of another person, isn't that murder? How else would you want to call it? Homicide? Parricide?]
But it can also be understood to mean not being willing or not desiring to add more human life to the already crowded population. [If you live in a crowded place, it is crowded but if you live in Mindanao, skip, hop and jump to your hearts delight!] This would be the stance of a married couple who decide to abstain from the acts that bring about life. To a certain extent this is also the stance of a young man who chooses a celibate life not because he hates children but out of a conviction that he can accomplish better what he feels he is called to do without the burden of raising children. [He is speaking about the consecrated life.] Definitely I would not categorize such persons as being anti-life. [Uhm...neither do the pro-lifers. This is a different thing.] They love life so much that they take it upon themselves to contribute in some way or other to the improvement of the quality of life of those who are already born.
We come now to contraception. Is contraception anti-life in the sense of being directed at actual life? The phrase anti-life is an active and not a passive word. The word “anti” in compound word is an active word aimed at life. Thus we must ask when life begins, because before life begins it is beyond the reach of anti-life action.
When does life begin? For me, the starting point in dealing with this very specific question is what the Constitution says. [Oh brother! He asks a scientific question and read a legal document to answer it.] It says that the state “shall protect the life of the unborn from conception.” What this means, in the understanding of the men and women who wrote that Constitution, is that life begins at conception, that is, upon fertilization. [At least he is truthful about it here. He knows this for a fact since he is one of the framers of our present Constitution.] Before fertilization there is no life. This is also the view of the Philippine Medical Society and this is the view of John Paul II. John Paul II says that life is so important that we should not do anything that will endanger it. We would be taking at least a very serious risk against life if we terminate development after fertilization.
What this means is that one who practices abstention is not anti-life. The celibate who gives up procreation for a higher calling is not anti-life. The use of contraceptive devises that only prevents fertilization is not anti-life in the sense of being an act of murder. [Now hold on to your horses. He is tacitly saying that is you use condoms, which prevents the sperm from meeting the egg, then it is not anti-life. Correct, right? Well, how about Humanae Vitae? Ahhhhhh.....now that is where things change, ain't it?] Abortion, in the sense of expulsion of the fertilized ovum at any time after fertilization is anti-life, is abortion and is an act of murder. If life of the unborn is terminated at a stage of viability the crime is infanticide. For that reason the Penal Code and also the proposed RH Bill prohibits and penalizes abortion and infanticide. [Uhm, no. The House version of the RH Bill does not say so.]
I have heard it loosely said that what are being marketed as contraception devices are in fact abortive devices. This is loose talk. If there are such abortive devices being marketed, they should be identified scientifically, not by gossip, and withdrawn from the market. [They have been identified oh Father! Try getting out more often. You want a copy of the studies? Simple fact is that one of the mechanisms of action of OCPs is the prevention of a fertilized ovum from being implanted. So what do you call that? Will you see the answers for that in the Constitution? Guess not. Just saying because you like to quote and use the Constitution.] The Food and Drug Administration has the responsibility of ensuring that no abortifacient drugs be marketed. [But the DOH is pro-RH and the DOH is the head agency overseeing the FDA. So what do you make of that?!] I know of one drug which was withdrawn from the market after being proved before the FDA to be abortifacient. This was the subject of a thesis of a student of mine which she defended, as required for graduation from the Ateneo Law School, before a panel of professors. [AND THAT WAS A LONG TIME AGO.]
Having said all this I must also put on my hat as priest of the Catholic Church. I accept the teaching of the Catholic Church which prohibits not only abortion but also artificial contraception. Yet one might say that through this article I am in fact approving artificial contraception. [Oh yes you do evern if you are wearing THAT hat!] I am not doing such a thing. Aside from being a Catholic priest in good standing I am also a lawyer and teacher and student of Constitutional Law. [I don't thing he is not that GOOD in standing now he created such a headache with his flip-flopping articles!] What I am doing is to place all this in the context of our constitutionally mandated pluralistic society. [WHAT HAPPENED TO THE HAT?!?!] Not all citizens of the Philippines are Catholics. [We're not idiots. Don't keep on saying that. But I think he forgot that majority of Filipinos are Catholics and that this is a democracy where the majority rules, isn't it?] Many of them therefore do not consider artificial contraception immoral or anti-life. [Based on the Bible of SWS.] The teaching of my Church is that I must respect the belief of other religions even if I do not agree with them. [He conveniently leaves out the teaching of his Church about artificial contraceptives, and he does not give a strong stance against it.] That is how Catholics and non-Catholics can live together in harmony. [In the age of Aquarius!!! lalalalala!!!] The alternative, which God forbid, is the restoration of the Inquisition.
26 September 2011
***
Ever heard the evil of relativism?
Fr. Bernas is a perfect example of this.
What will Fr. Bernas say about the proposed divorce law or the gay "marriage" law?
I am pretty sure he will say:
"Having said all this I must also put on my hat as priest of the Catholic Church. I accept the teaching of the Catholic Church...What I am doing is to place all this in the context of our constitutionally mandated pluralistic society."
Such a genius!
He wears the hat of the Catholic priest yet acts like a Mason! Religion does not matter!
Wanna send this post to the Holy See, Fr. Bernas?
Maybe he really needs a sampling of the Inquisition.
You asked for it Fr. Bernas!
Saturday, September 24, 2011
One restaurant that Catholics should not go to
The place where plotters against the Church plan their evil schemes!
St. Michael would one day swoop down on this place and give it the death blow.
Diocese of Phoenix on Communion in both kinds
Now here is a classic case of journalism bias.
One report writes the facts behinds the decision, while the other conveniently misses it out (I guess) and gives more space to hippie rants.
I posted here both articles with my usual banter, of course.
***
This one from Catholic Culture
The Diocese of Phoenix has announced that it will issue norms specifying the conditions under which Holy Communion may be distributed under both species.
“The new norms will promote unity in the celebration of the Eucharist all around the world, and come from the revised General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd Edition, together with the final edition of The Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds for the Dioceses of the United States of America,” the diocese stated in a press release.
“In the Roman Missal (1975), 14 instances were provided when the chalice could be offered to the laity,” the diocese noted. “From 1975 on, the United States, United Kingdom and Oceania were given experimental privileges for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds. [Now look out for this one here.] These privileges expired in 2005 and were not renewed by the Holy See. The new norms issued in June 2011 are what guide the liturgical practice today and in the future.” [THERE WERE NORMS!!! And the bishops did not tell us! Then, why, pray tell, did the Philippines ever follow and are still DOING IT?!?! Especially in convents and seminaries where seminarians and nuns receive Holy Communion ala Oreo Commercial, except the twist and lick that is. They get their own Hosts and dunk it into the chalice!]
“These universal norms for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds greatly expanded those times when the chalice could be offered to the lay faithful for most of the Catholic world (since in most countries their practice was virtually non-existent),” the diocesan statement continued. “In the Diocese of Phoenix, like other places where the practice of reception from the chalice became frequent or even commonplace, the new norms call for the practice of less frequent distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds than the faithful may have been accustomed.”
[Here are the RARE exceptions.]
“In normal circumstances, only priests and deacons are to distribute Holy Communion,” the diocese added; “when both forms of Communion are used frequently, ‘extraordinary’ ministers of Holy Communion are disproportionately multiplied.”
***
And this one from the Arizona Republic. Guess this paper needs a really serious reporter who knows Catholic teachings and liturgy
The Phoenix Diocese will stop offering consecrated wine for Communion at most Masses, a change considered one of the most fundamental to Roman Catholic Church customs in decades.
A diocesan statement said the change was being made based on Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted's understanding of the church's new translation of the Mass, called the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, and other church documents.
However, no other diocese in the country is known to be following suit, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops told The Arizona Republic. [So?]
An effective date has not been announced.
The change will be one of the most significant in the Roman Catholic liturgy since the 1970s, when the distribution of wine [Not just wine you idjit!] was approved for the United States.
For many Catholics in the '70s, that change to Communion - the central act of worship in the Catholic Mass [ah, what?!] - represented a greater role for laypeople, [come again?!] who for the first time in centuries were able to take both forms of Communion, bread and wine, and help distribute it. Before, the use of wine was reserved only for clergy.
Communion, a sacrament that symbolizes a spiritual union with Christ, is a widespread practice among Christian churches, following the commands of Jesus in the Gospels. But the Catholic Church believes the bread and wine used during the service actually are transformed [uhm, geez....] into the body and blood of Christ.
The change in practice by the Phoenix Diocese stirred an immediate controversy among priests, deacons and laypeople. Wine will be limited to only special occasions.
"The majority of priests were stunned and aghast at the announcement, and I hear some are planning to meet to see how best to respond," said the Rev. James Turner, pastor of St. Thomas More in Glendale. [HIPPIE PRIEST ALERT!] "While the bishop has the authority to make this policy change, there is no scriptural, theological or sacramental rationale that makes any sense." [Well ask this priest is there is any "scriptural, theological or sacramental rationale that makes any sense" as to the distribution of Communion under both kinds?]
But the Rev. John Ehrich, pastor of St. Thomas the Apostle in Phoenix, said the liturgical law of the church provides for only specific circumstances under which both forms of Communion may be distributed. [Unless you are Fr. James Turner who thinks the Catholic Church is now the Episcopalian or Lutheran Church?!]
"Bishop Olmsted is merely expecting the priests to follow the teaching of the church in this matter," he said, adding that he imposed restrictions at his parish four years ago. [The priest did it a loooonnnggg time ago and did you hear anyone getting "stunned"and was "aghast"? Guess none!]
Sister Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is not aware of another U.S. diocese enacting such a restriction, although she noted that local bishops have the authority to do so.
The Rev. Al Schifano, a top church official in the Diocese of Tucson, said that Bishop Gerald Kicanas encourages Communion using both bread and wine and that the diocese will not change that under the new Mass translations. [Guess the bishop has his own set of laws, right?]
The Rev. Anthony Ruff, [*belch*] a professor at St. John's University in Collegeville, Minn., called the move a step backward.
"It's sad to see," he said, because the move separates the church further ecumenically from others [what others?! And you taught that this guy is a "world-renowned Benedictine liturgist". No seriously. He acts the same way as the OTHER GUY.] and gives up "the gains we've made in the last half-century in our understanding of liturgy and sacraments." [What gains?! Empty churches? Fewer priests? More lay people at the altar? Pro-abortion nuns? Pro-RH priests?]
Catholic members of the community were as divided as the priests.
"I would think these church leaders would be more concerned about the droves of people leaving the Catholic Church as well as the worsening shortage of priests," said Dennis Kavanaugh, an attorney who attends Resurrection parish in Tempe. "These issues are much more substantial to the long-term health of the church rather than reinstating medieval rituals and directives." [And the doomsdayers are here again. These same group of people are the very same ones who said that if the Traditional Latin Mass gets regularized, droves of Catholic would leave the Church. I guess it didn't happen. Maybe they belong to that same group who predicted the end of the world, eh?]
Judi Wilson of Blessed Sacrament parish in Scottsdale said she will miss taking Communion wine, but she noted that the church teaches that Christ is fully available in bread or wine. [God bless Judi! And a laywoman knows and believes this! But the attorney and that world-renowned Benedictine monk did not realize that, eh? No, not the Filipino monk. He did not say that. But if he did, a package will be on its way to the Vatican, ASAP. Bet on it!]
"It wouldn't make any difference," she said. "I will look forward to those times we can take the wine."
According to the diocese, the change was announced at a recent meeting of diocesan priests with Olmsted. [It was announced among the priests yet the priest in the earlier part of the news said that they will meet the bishop and were stunned and aghast! Was he absent during the meeting? He did not get the memo?!?!] A diocese statement said new rules will be drafted and a time frame determined in the next few months.
Some priests said the date initially was supposed to coincide with the new Mass translation, which is set to debut Nov. 27. But negative reaction from some priests may have persuaded the bishop to hold off. [may!]
Olmsted declined a request for an interview. [Not with this reporter if you ask me!]The diocese issued a statement and a question-and-answer sheet to explain the move.
New norms, or guidelines, that came out this year, the statement said, expanded the offering of Communion under the form of wine for most of the world, "but in the Diocese of Phoenix, the new norms call for the practice of less frequent distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds than the faithful may have been accustomed."
The option of offering both bread and wine for Communion has been in place since 1975. Catholics never have been obligated to take both and, until 1975, the practice had been forbidden since the mid-1500s. The church teaches that Christ and the full blessings of Communion are present in either form. [And yet Fr. Anthony Ruff thinks this is a move backwards. And the other priest were stunned and aghast! Is this like a burger and fried thing? Or pancake and syrup? That you cannot enjoy the food without the other one? Kinda like coffee and pan de sal here, eh?]
According to the diocesan statement, the United States is one of only a few countries where offering wine became common at Masses, often distributed with the help of non-ordained parishioners. [Because the bishops of the USA, led by Cardinal Bernardin at that time, were the most stubborn and the ones who lead the dissent. Poor Paul VI and John Paul II had to put up with them!]
The Rev. John Muir, a priest at the Newman Center in Tempe who is part of the diocese Office for Worship, said the change actually is a return to general practice of the church worldwide. [That is what being Catholic is! That is why Anthony Ruff and Anscar Chupungco despise the Traditional Latin Mass because they lose their speaking engagements and won't sell books! They need a Mass that they treat as a production number or a TV show!]
The use of consecrated wine for Communion "is a beautiful gift," he said, "to be given the right way, at the right time, with the right sacramental power." [Ooooooo.....MST would hate this especially the underlined words! Ha!]
He added, "Nothing in reality is being taken away. Catholics believe they receive the Precious Blood (the consecrated wine) under the species of bread." [Unless you are talking to those two Benedictine monks and the theologians of MST, LST, Euntes and SVST.]
***
Read the actual statement from the Diocese and judge for yourselves.
One report writes the facts behinds the decision, while the other conveniently misses it out (I guess) and gives more space to hippie rants.
I posted here both articles with my usual banter, of course.
***
This one from Catholic Culture
The Diocese of Phoenix has announced that it will issue norms specifying the conditions under which Holy Communion may be distributed under both species.
“The new norms will promote unity in the celebration of the Eucharist all around the world, and come from the revised General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd Edition, together with the final edition of The Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds for the Dioceses of the United States of America,” the diocese stated in a press release.
“In the Roman Missal (1975), 14 instances were provided when the chalice could be offered to the laity,” the diocese noted. “From 1975 on, the United States, United Kingdom and Oceania were given experimental privileges for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds. [Now look out for this one here.] These privileges expired in 2005 and were not renewed by the Holy See. The new norms issued in June 2011 are what guide the liturgical practice today and in the future.” [THERE WERE NORMS!!! And the bishops did not tell us! Then, why, pray tell, did the Philippines ever follow and are still DOING IT?!?! Especially in convents and seminaries where seminarians and nuns receive Holy Communion ala Oreo Commercial, except the twist and lick that is. They get their own Hosts and dunk it into the chalice!]
“These universal norms for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds greatly expanded those times when the chalice could be offered to the lay faithful for most of the Catholic world (since in most countries their practice was virtually non-existent),” the diocesan statement continued. “In the Diocese of Phoenix, like other places where the practice of reception from the chalice became frequent or even commonplace, the new norms call for the practice of less frequent distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds than the faithful may have been accustomed.”
[Here are the RARE exceptions.]
The ritual books state that Holy Communion may be offered at the Chrism Mass and feast of Corpus Christi. Additionally, it may be offered to a Catholic couple at their wedding Mass, to first communicants and their family members, confirmation candidates and their sponsors, as well as deacons, non-concelebrating priests, servers and seminarians at any Mass, as well as community members at a conventual Mass or those on a retreat or at a spiritual gathering. In addition, a priest may select other important solemnities in which it may be offered, e.g., parish patronal feast days or the celebration of the dedication of the church building, provided the conditions are met.
“In normal circumstances, only priests and deacons are to distribute Holy Communion,” the diocese added; “when both forms of Communion are used frequently, ‘extraordinary’ ministers of Holy Communion are disproportionately multiplied.”
***
And this one from the Arizona Republic. Guess this paper needs a really serious reporter who knows Catholic teachings and liturgy
The Phoenix Diocese will stop offering consecrated wine for Communion at most Masses, a change considered one of the most fundamental to Roman Catholic Church customs in decades.
A diocesan statement said the change was being made based on Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted's understanding of the church's new translation of the Mass, called the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, and other church documents.
However, no other diocese in the country is known to be following suit, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops told The Arizona Republic. [So?]
An effective date has not been announced.
The change will be one of the most significant in the Roman Catholic liturgy since the 1970s, when the distribution of wine [Not just wine you idjit!] was approved for the United States.
For many Catholics in the '70s, that change to Communion - the central act of worship in the Catholic Mass [ah, what?!] - represented a greater role for laypeople, [come again?!] who for the first time in centuries were able to take both forms of Communion, bread and wine, and help distribute it. Before, the use of wine was reserved only for clergy.
Communion, a sacrament that symbolizes a spiritual union with Christ, is a widespread practice among Christian churches, following the commands of Jesus in the Gospels. But the Catholic Church believes the bread and wine used during the service actually are transformed [uhm, geez....] into the body and blood of Christ.
The change in practice by the Phoenix Diocese stirred an immediate controversy among priests, deacons and laypeople. Wine will be limited to only special occasions.
"The majority of priests were stunned and aghast at the announcement, and I hear some are planning to meet to see how best to respond," said the Rev. James Turner, pastor of St. Thomas More in Glendale. [HIPPIE PRIEST ALERT!] "While the bishop has the authority to make this policy change, there is no scriptural, theological or sacramental rationale that makes any sense." [Well ask this priest is there is any "scriptural, theological or sacramental rationale that makes any sense" as to the distribution of Communion under both kinds?]
But the Rev. John Ehrich, pastor of St. Thomas the Apostle in Phoenix, said the liturgical law of the church provides for only specific circumstances under which both forms of Communion may be distributed. [Unless you are Fr. James Turner who thinks the Catholic Church is now the Episcopalian or Lutheran Church?!]
"Bishop Olmsted is merely expecting the priests to follow the teaching of the church in this matter," he said, adding that he imposed restrictions at his parish four years ago. [The priest did it a loooonnnggg time ago and did you hear anyone getting "stunned"and was "aghast"? Guess none!]
Sister Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is not aware of another U.S. diocese enacting such a restriction, although she noted that local bishops have the authority to do so.
The Rev. Al Schifano, a top church official in the Diocese of Tucson, said that Bishop Gerald Kicanas encourages Communion using both bread and wine and that the diocese will not change that under the new Mass translations. [Guess the bishop has his own set of laws, right?]
The Rev. Anthony Ruff, [*belch*] a professor at St. John's University in Collegeville, Minn., called the move a step backward.
"It's sad to see," he said, because the move separates the church further ecumenically from others [what others?! And you taught that this guy is a "world-renowned Benedictine liturgist". No seriously. He acts the same way as the OTHER GUY.] and gives up "the gains we've made in the last half-century in our understanding of liturgy and sacraments." [What gains?! Empty churches? Fewer priests? More lay people at the altar? Pro-abortion nuns? Pro-RH priests?]
Catholic members of the community were as divided as the priests.
"I would think these church leaders would be more concerned about the droves of people leaving the Catholic Church as well as the worsening shortage of priests," said Dennis Kavanaugh, an attorney who attends Resurrection parish in Tempe. "These issues are much more substantial to the long-term health of the church rather than reinstating medieval rituals and directives." [And the doomsdayers are here again. These same group of people are the very same ones who said that if the Traditional Latin Mass gets regularized, droves of Catholic would leave the Church. I guess it didn't happen. Maybe they belong to that same group who predicted the end of the world, eh?]
Judi Wilson of Blessed Sacrament parish in Scottsdale said she will miss taking Communion wine, but she noted that the church teaches that Christ is fully available in bread or wine. [God bless Judi! And a laywoman knows and believes this! But the attorney and that world-renowned Benedictine monk did not realize that, eh? No, not the Filipino monk. He did not say that. But if he did, a package will be on its way to the Vatican, ASAP. Bet on it!]
"It wouldn't make any difference," she said. "I will look forward to those times we can take the wine."
According to the diocese, the change was announced at a recent meeting of diocesan priests with Olmsted. [It was announced among the priests yet the priest in the earlier part of the news said that they will meet the bishop and were stunned and aghast! Was he absent during the meeting? He did not get the memo?!?!] A diocese statement said new rules will be drafted and a time frame determined in the next few months.
Some priests said the date initially was supposed to coincide with the new Mass translation, which is set to debut Nov. 27. But negative reaction from some priests may have persuaded the bishop to hold off. [may!]
Olmsted declined a request for an interview. [Not with this reporter if you ask me!]The diocese issued a statement and a question-and-answer sheet to explain the move.
New norms, or guidelines, that came out this year, the statement said, expanded the offering of Communion under the form of wine for most of the world, "but in the Diocese of Phoenix, the new norms call for the practice of less frequent distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds than the faithful may have been accustomed."
The option of offering both bread and wine for Communion has been in place since 1975. Catholics never have been obligated to take both and, until 1975, the practice had been forbidden since the mid-1500s. The church teaches that Christ and the full blessings of Communion are present in either form. [And yet Fr. Anthony Ruff thinks this is a move backwards. And the other priest were stunned and aghast! Is this like a burger and fried thing? Or pancake and syrup? That you cannot enjoy the food without the other one? Kinda like coffee and pan de sal here, eh?]
According to the diocesan statement, the United States is one of only a few countries where offering wine became common at Masses, often distributed with the help of non-ordained parishioners. [Because the bishops of the USA, led by Cardinal Bernardin at that time, were the most stubborn and the ones who lead the dissent. Poor Paul VI and John Paul II had to put up with them!]
The Rev. John Muir, a priest at the Newman Center in Tempe who is part of the diocese Office for Worship, said the change actually is a return to general practice of the church worldwide. [That is what being Catholic is! That is why Anthony Ruff and Anscar Chupungco despise the Traditional Latin Mass because they lose their speaking engagements and won't sell books! They need a Mass that they treat as a production number or a TV show!]
The use of consecrated wine for Communion "is a beautiful gift," he said, "to be given the right way, at the right time, with the right sacramental power." [Ooooooo.....MST would hate this especially the underlined words! Ha!]
He added, "Nothing in reality is being taken away. Catholics believe they receive the Precious Blood (the consecrated wine) under the species of bread." [Unless you are talking to those two Benedictine monks and the theologians of MST, LST, Euntes and SVST.]
***
Read the actual statement from the Diocese and judge for yourselves.
Benedict XVI to Lutherans: Faith is not something that can be negotiated
Guess theologians at MST and Euntes will go nutty about this!
Oh yeah, and that honorary Lutheran who is also a Benedictine world-renowned liturgists masking as a Catholic Benedictine monk.
He too would throw a nutty. Remember folks, he got the boot from Joseph Ratzinger and lost his job at San't Anselmo!
An ex homosexual rights leader speaks up
The terrible truth about AIDS is that, while outside factors introduced and perpetuated the 1970s sexual excesses, virtually every lethal infection was passed by one gay person to another. We did it to ourselves, even after knowing the consequences.
Read more about it here.
Wish Marlon Lacsamana can read this.
Ha!
A US official expresses disgust for the media
From The Church Report
***
'Today unfortunately many in the media would like nothing better than to ridicule Christians,' Carroll [Florida Lieutenant Governor Jennifer Carroll] said at the Faith and Freedom Coalition rally. 'They promote The Da Vinci code, they place doubt in the public's mind that Christ was not risen, and they condemn the passion of Christ.' [Isn't that what Maryhill School of Theology does?]
The coalition rally coincided with the start of the three-day Republican Party gathering known as Presidency 5. Presidency 5 highlights include a televised debate between GOP presidential candidates and a straw poll of Florida GOP activists.
Carroll added that the media sensationalize stories about removing God from the Pledge of Allegiance and putting prayer back in schools.
"These are very sad times when we allow the minority to poison the minds of the majority," Carroll said and then added: "This is exactly what dictators and socialist rulers did." [Isn't that what the RH people do?]
Carroll is a Navy veteran who in 2003 became the first black female Republican elected to the Florida Legislature and last year became the state's first black lieutenant governor.
She was one of a long list of people, including GOP presidential candidates Gov. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, who spoke to a crowd of several hundred people at the coalition rally.
Several of the speakers mentioned God and the Bible, but Carroll in her remarks challenged those in attendance to show their faith and help bring about a "righteous government." [Also known as "Religious Identity in the Public Square".]
"Ladies and gentlemen, Christianity is in a fight and it is one of the greatest trials we have seen in modern times," Carroll said. [Can we hear an 'Amen'?]
She also said that "in today's society we will trust the car salesman and the government more than we trust in the Lord." [BOOM! That's right in the kisser! Right Miriam Santiago?]
Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said Carroll is free to follow any religion she wants. But he said she and other politicians want to force their religious beliefs on others in the state. [Isn't this the same language the pro-RH people are speaking?]
"What the Lt. Gov., Gov. Scott and much of the legislature want is not freedom of religion, but government-funded, government-sponsored and government-enforced religion," Simon said. "Fortunately, our constitutional values protect every Floridian from politicians who mix religion and public policy for political gain." (AP)
***
When a group of people especially a politician decides on important matter based on what his conscience tells him, and that his conscience was shaped by his religious conviction, his values, his very own upbringing by his own family...
Is that forcing my religion on you?
If I make a law that defends the traditional view of marriage, is that forcing my religion on you?
If I insist that marriage is the union of man and woman ONLY with the purpose of pro-creation and mutual support and love, is that forcing my religion on you?
The problem with media is that they tell you what to do. They do not want to tell you what to do.
The greatest irony is that media is against tyranny and dictatorship, the vanguard of democracy but the MEDIA EXECUTIVES will never be told what to say or do.
They are one of the biggest bullies this side of the planet.
And that is one hard fact that they know but they will never accept.
***
'Today unfortunately many in the media would like nothing better than to ridicule Christians,' Carroll [Florida Lieutenant Governor Jennifer Carroll] said at the Faith and Freedom Coalition rally. 'They promote The Da Vinci code, they place doubt in the public's mind that Christ was not risen, and they condemn the passion of Christ.' [Isn't that what Maryhill School of Theology does?]
The coalition rally coincided with the start of the three-day Republican Party gathering known as Presidency 5. Presidency 5 highlights include a televised debate between GOP presidential candidates and a straw poll of Florida GOP activists.
Carroll added that the media sensationalize stories about removing God from the Pledge of Allegiance and putting prayer back in schools.
"These are very sad times when we allow the minority to poison the minds of the majority," Carroll said and then added: "This is exactly what dictators and socialist rulers did." [Isn't that what the RH people do?]
Carroll is a Navy veteran who in 2003 became the first black female Republican elected to the Florida Legislature and last year became the state's first black lieutenant governor.
She was one of a long list of people, including GOP presidential candidates Gov. Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, who spoke to a crowd of several hundred people at the coalition rally.
Several of the speakers mentioned God and the Bible, but Carroll in her remarks challenged those in attendance to show their faith and help bring about a "righteous government." [Also known as "Religious Identity in the Public Square".]
"Ladies and gentlemen, Christianity is in a fight and it is one of the greatest trials we have seen in modern times," Carroll said. [Can we hear an 'Amen'?]
She also said that "in today's society we will trust the car salesman and the government more than we trust in the Lord." [BOOM! That's right in the kisser! Right Miriam Santiago?]
Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said Carroll is free to follow any religion she wants. But he said she and other politicians want to force their religious beliefs on others in the state. [Isn't this the same language the pro-RH people are speaking?]
"What the Lt. Gov., Gov. Scott and much of the legislature want is not freedom of religion, but government-funded, government-sponsored and government-enforced religion," Simon said. "Fortunately, our constitutional values protect every Floridian from politicians who mix religion and public policy for political gain." (AP)
***
When a group of people especially a politician decides on important matter based on what his conscience tells him, and that his conscience was shaped by his religious conviction, his values, his very own upbringing by his own family...
Is that forcing my religion on you?
If I make a law that defends the traditional view of marriage, is that forcing my religion on you?
If I insist that marriage is the union of man and woman ONLY with the purpose of pro-creation and mutual support and love, is that forcing my religion on you?
The problem with media is that they tell you what to do. They do not want to tell you what to do.
The greatest irony is that media is against tyranny and dictatorship, the vanguard of democracy but the MEDIA EXECUTIVES will never be told what to say or do.
They are one of the biggest bullies this side of the planet.
And that is one hard fact that they know but they will never accept.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Words of wisdom: St. Pio of Pietrelcina
Prayer is the best weapon we have; it is the key to God's heart. You must speak to Jesus not only with your lips, but with your heart. In fact on certain occasions you should only speak to Him with your heart...
Every Holy Mass, heard with devotion, produces in our souls marvelous effects, abundant spiritual and material graces which we, ourselves, do not know…It is easier for the earth to exist without the sun than without the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass!
-- St. Pio of Pietrelcina (25 May 1887 – 23 September 1968)
Miriam Santiago's European History 101
Arrogant...
Lunatic...
Revisionist...
Just plain crazy.
She does not deserve to be paid by our taxes nor even be entrusted with the authority to govern us either us a legislator or as a government executive.
Celdran as Condom endorser....Ew!
At least Humpty Dumpty admitted in public that it is all about money and not about Women's Reproductive Health.
Still disgusting, both the product and the endorser.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
A Jesuit's take of the RH Bill
RH Bill vs. Five Levels of Self-Transcendence
Walter Ysaac, S.J.
***
The Reproductive Health (RH) bill is “a mindset and a value system” that are “secularist, materialistic, individualistic and hedonistic in the guise of development and modernity.” Thus, according to the CBCP statement during the “dialogue” meeting last May 10, 2011 (Philippine Star, May 11, 2011, pp.1 and 3), even the good provisions of the Responsible Parenthood (alias RH) bill are “inextricably woven” with the “bad provisions.” Example, it would include authorizing the government buying with taxpayers’ money artificial contraceptives that are already doubtful with regard to being abortifacient or dangerous to health of mother and child and father and to good family relationships, and distributing them upon request to anybody until prohibited by the Food and Drug Administration. [not all pro-RH people know about this. Those who know this but continue to promote the RH Bill are either paid hacks by the pharmaceutical companies and/or pro-abortion lobbyists masking as feminists. Uhm, that's your oxymoron of the day folks!]
But the main defect and danger of the RP (“Responsible” Parenthood) bill is that it is imposed on the people, particularly the poor, by a government without regard for the culture or “world mediated by meanings and motivated by values” of the Filipino people. To really develop and update or “modernize” a people is to make them transcend and sublate themselves from the level of their experience to that of their understanding to that of their judgment to that of their decision up even to the highest level of their unconditional love which is a pure gift of God to us and can only be attained through authentic prayer or truly living relationship with God. [and yet you have Fr. Bernas who trumps his "freedom to choose" thingy! Well, of course, for Fr. Bernas the Constitution is more important than the salvation of your immortal soul!]
Now, the experience of the people must start from what they are now in their present culture, their presently accepted meanings and values. [Quite dubious if you ask me.] Anything imposed on them from above will be received according to their own experienced meanings and values which they have understood, affirmed and practiced and unconditionally loved as their own. If the RP bill has, from the start, meanings and values foreign or contrary to theirs, it will be ineffective, (i.e., will not produce the results desired by the bill, namely, reduce population growth), or worse, it will be like an experiment imposed on the throbbing flesh of the Filipino people, causing a lot of suffering and disruption in their lives as a people. Witness what happened to all the other countries who have allowed the imposition of such a mindset and value system to enter into their laws and cultures. [I hope that this line of reasoning is limited to the RH Bill because this line of reasoning of "not being influenced by a foreign culture" is how Vatican II fanatics trump to dissent with what "comes out of Rome". So you have cases of liturgy that is "not Roman" but "Filipino". Just saying.]
[I think this is the good part here.] To have authentic development there is no substitute to self-transcendence (being attentive in experience, intelligent in understanding, reasonable in judgment, responsible in decision and unconditional in love) and sublation (the development from one lower level of living to a higher one will not only not result in any loss of what is good in the lower one but would raise and lift the good in the lower one to the richer level of good of the higher one and so will even need that lower-level good to grow into and become the richer higher-level good).
Thus, if reducing population growth is the end of the RP bill, then it should not impose from above a mindset and value system opposed to the culture of the Filipino people but must start by moving within that culture of the people and go hand in hand with them to develop that culture to more and more attentiveness, intelligence, reasonableness, responsibleness, and finally, to an unconditionalness in love that can transform their responsibleness, reasonableness, intelligence and attentiveness to an even higher (divine) level.
Fr. Walter L. Ysaac, S.J. is a Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology at the Loyola School of Theology.
***
This is an actual breather if you ask me after the debacle that the Ateneo did when some of its professors expressed support for a Bill that is against Catholic teaching against contraception and after its former president gave a response that would not even qualify as a slap on the wrist.
But I am a bit disappointed in that the Jesuit did not even refer to the Magisterial teaching of the Church against artificial birth control methods. Instead, he delved upon the cultural impacts of such a Bill that is literally pulled out of the private library of Hillary Clinton and Henry Kissinger!
But, be it as it may, it is still a breather!
Walter Ysaac, S.J.
***
The Reproductive Health (RH) bill is “a mindset and a value system” that are “secularist, materialistic, individualistic and hedonistic in the guise of development and modernity.” Thus, according to the CBCP statement during the “dialogue” meeting last May 10, 2011 (Philippine Star, May 11, 2011, pp.1 and 3), even the good provisions of the Responsible Parenthood (alias RH) bill are “inextricably woven” with the “bad provisions.” Example, it would include authorizing the government buying with taxpayers’ money artificial contraceptives that are already doubtful with regard to being abortifacient or dangerous to health of mother and child and father and to good family relationships, and distributing them upon request to anybody until prohibited by the Food and Drug Administration. [not all pro-RH people know about this. Those who know this but continue to promote the RH Bill are either paid hacks by the pharmaceutical companies and/or pro-abortion lobbyists masking as feminists. Uhm, that's your oxymoron of the day folks!]
But the main defect and danger of the RP (“Responsible” Parenthood) bill is that it is imposed on the people, particularly the poor, by a government without regard for the culture or “world mediated by meanings and motivated by values” of the Filipino people. To really develop and update or “modernize” a people is to make them transcend and sublate themselves from the level of their experience to that of their understanding to that of their judgment to that of their decision up even to the highest level of their unconditional love which is a pure gift of God to us and can only be attained through authentic prayer or truly living relationship with God. [and yet you have Fr. Bernas who trumps his "freedom to choose" thingy! Well, of course, for Fr. Bernas the Constitution is more important than the salvation of your immortal soul!]
Now, the experience of the people must start from what they are now in their present culture, their presently accepted meanings and values. [Quite dubious if you ask me.] Anything imposed on them from above will be received according to their own experienced meanings and values which they have understood, affirmed and practiced and unconditionally loved as their own. If the RP bill has, from the start, meanings and values foreign or contrary to theirs, it will be ineffective, (i.e., will not produce the results desired by the bill, namely, reduce population growth), or worse, it will be like an experiment imposed on the throbbing flesh of the Filipino people, causing a lot of suffering and disruption in their lives as a people. Witness what happened to all the other countries who have allowed the imposition of such a mindset and value system to enter into their laws and cultures. [I hope that this line of reasoning is limited to the RH Bill because this line of reasoning of "not being influenced by a foreign culture" is how Vatican II fanatics trump to dissent with what "comes out of Rome". So you have cases of liturgy that is "not Roman" but "Filipino". Just saying.]
[I think this is the good part here.] To have authentic development there is no substitute to self-transcendence (being attentive in experience, intelligent in understanding, reasonable in judgment, responsible in decision and unconditional in love) and sublation (the development from one lower level of living to a higher one will not only not result in any loss of what is good in the lower one but would raise and lift the good in the lower one to the richer level of good of the higher one and so will even need that lower-level good to grow into and become the richer higher-level good).
Thus, if reducing population growth is the end of the RP bill, then it should not impose from above a mindset and value system opposed to the culture of the Filipino people but must start by moving within that culture of the people and go hand in hand with them to develop that culture to more and more attentiveness, intelligence, reasonableness, responsibleness, and finally, to an unconditionalness in love that can transform their responsibleness, reasonableness, intelligence and attentiveness to an even higher (divine) level.
Fr. Walter L. Ysaac, S.J. is a Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology at the Loyola School of Theology.
***
This is an actual breather if you ask me after the debacle that the Ateneo did when some of its professors expressed support for a Bill that is against Catholic teaching against contraception and after its former president gave a response that would not even qualify as a slap on the wrist.
But I am a bit disappointed in that the Jesuit did not even refer to the Magisterial teaching of the Church against artificial birth control methods. Instead, he delved upon the cultural impacts of such a Bill that is literally pulled out of the private library of Hillary Clinton and Henry Kissinger!
But, be it as it may, it is still a breather!
Los Angeles turns 230 years old
"....It was a day that combined tradition, cultural unity and of course faith. But above all, it was a way to venerate the city's patroness."
And the city has legalized abortion and same sex unions.
Oh boy...
So much for it's Catholic roots, eh?
Great job Cardinal Mahony!
What they must be saying
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Words of wisdom: The alleged spirit of Vatican II
"The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of 'superdogma' which takes away the importance of all the rest."
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Double standard?
Thought provoking.
Read and comment.
From the Pew Sitter.
***
Over the last year, three prominent priests, all outspokenly pro-life, have been the subject of disciplinary actions by their bishop or immediate superior. Fr. Frank Pavone is the latest of these. The other two are of course, Fr. Corapi and Fr. Euteneuer. It is not my intent to lump these three together in terms of guilt or innocence; rather it is only to illustrate that in each case a very public action was initiated against them.
To be clear, I am NOT criticizing a Bishop's right or obligation to discipline. As lay Catholics from the outside looking in, we may not always understand or even agree with the actions taken by the Church hierarchy. However, we do acknowledge that one of the duties of a spiritual shepherd is to reprove and correct all of the faithful under their care, whether priest or layperson. [That is the keyword there folks. ALL OF THE FAITHFUL, whether clergy or laity.]
According to the website OneNationUnderGod.com that tracks Catholic politicians and their votes, as of 2009 there were 161 Catholics serving in Congress. Twenty-six had a 100% voting record on all life issue votes and twenty-eight have never taken a pro-life position, earning a 0% voting record. Thirty four Catholic lawmakers co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act of 2007. Seventy-five Catholic members of Congress accepted campaign donations from groups that advocated for unrestricted abortion rights. [I'll bet a dollar and a dime that Miriam and Edcel Lagman will fit right into this group.]
Unfortunately, there appears to be double standard within the hierarchy when it comes to meting out discipline. In the three cases mentioned above, highly public steps were taken where a problem was perceived to have existed. Would it be that equally decisive action were taken to correct and reprove Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Andrew Cuomo, Rudy Giuliani, John Kerry, and other prominent pro-abortion Catholics politicians in public life.
Catholics understand and support the behind-the-scenes dialogue and diplomacy that Bishops and others within the Church hierarchy must use with prominent Catholic officials. [And I know this for a fact, but....] Most Catholics would prefer to have such issues resolved in this way and not to air our dirty laundry in public. However, when public dissent by prominent Catholics continues for years and in some cases decades - as is the case with many politicians - some kind of public disciplinary action is necessary. [You may not want to wash dirty laundry in public but the question is if we are actually washing them in PRIVATE. Are we washing our dirty laundry at all?]
I can think of only one instance in the last five years where a Bishop actually took a public position against a Catholic politician. That instance was when Archbishop Joseph Naumann publicly requested that then Gov. Kathleen Sebelius not receive Holy Communion due to her pro-abortion position. That's it, and though public, one can argue that this wasn't a disciplinary action - but that's beside the point. The point is, out of dozens of very prominent Catholics in the Congress and State Houses, there is ONLY one example of a bishop taking action in response to their dissent. [Here, the cardinal -archbishop of Manila allowed his Cathedral-Basilica to host the wedding anniversary Mass of pro-RH and dissident "theological charlatan" Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago! And she has the audacity to even teach the bishops what is the actual teaching of the Church in morals by giving her own heretical interpretation of the Second Vatican Council!]
Many faithful Catholics see a double standard here. [Me!] If public action is called for when prominent pro-life priests who have strayed from the path, surely there is an equal need to take a public stand against prominent pro-abortion Catholics who have dissented for years or even decades - and remain unrepentant to this very day.
***
Here actually, things are a bit slow if you ask me.
What has the CBCP done to the ilk of the Ateneo Jesuits? The liberals of Maryhill School of Theology and os St. Vincent School of Theology and of Euntes in Zamboanga City?
How about Catholic politicians who openly go against the teachings of the Church against artificial contraceptives?
Still waiting!
One thing, among the handful of things I admire with that despicable Church of Felix Manalo Ysagun, is that it is quick to give the boot to anyone who would go against their teachings.
Well, of course after giving them all kinds of threats.
Oh, yeah believe me I have friends who swear by this. And when I mean threats, I mean ALL THREATS.
Going back...
When do we see those dissidents made to pay for their crimes, eh?
Read and comment.
From the Pew Sitter.
***
Over the last year, three prominent priests, all outspokenly pro-life, have been the subject of disciplinary actions by their bishop or immediate superior. Fr. Frank Pavone is the latest of these. The other two are of course, Fr. Corapi and Fr. Euteneuer. It is not my intent to lump these three together in terms of guilt or innocence; rather it is only to illustrate that in each case a very public action was initiated against them.
To be clear, I am NOT criticizing a Bishop's right or obligation to discipline. As lay Catholics from the outside looking in, we may not always understand or even agree with the actions taken by the Church hierarchy. However, we do acknowledge that one of the duties of a spiritual shepherd is to reprove and correct all of the faithful under their care, whether priest or layperson. [That is the keyword there folks. ALL OF THE FAITHFUL, whether clergy or laity.]
According to the website OneNationUnderGod.com that tracks Catholic politicians and their votes, as of 2009 there were 161 Catholics serving in Congress. Twenty-six had a 100% voting record on all life issue votes and twenty-eight have never taken a pro-life position, earning a 0% voting record. Thirty four Catholic lawmakers co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act of 2007. Seventy-five Catholic members of Congress accepted campaign donations from groups that advocated for unrestricted abortion rights. [I'll bet a dollar and a dime that Miriam and Edcel Lagman will fit right into this group.]
Unfortunately, there appears to be double standard within the hierarchy when it comes to meting out discipline. In the three cases mentioned above, highly public steps were taken where a problem was perceived to have existed. Would it be that equally decisive action were taken to correct and reprove Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Andrew Cuomo, Rudy Giuliani, John Kerry, and other prominent pro-abortion Catholics politicians in public life.
Catholics understand and support the behind-the-scenes dialogue and diplomacy that Bishops and others within the Church hierarchy must use with prominent Catholic officials. [And I know this for a fact, but....] Most Catholics would prefer to have such issues resolved in this way and not to air our dirty laundry in public. However, when public dissent by prominent Catholics continues for years and in some cases decades - as is the case with many politicians - some kind of public disciplinary action is necessary. [You may not want to wash dirty laundry in public but the question is if we are actually washing them in PRIVATE. Are we washing our dirty laundry at all?]
I can think of only one instance in the last five years where a Bishop actually took a public position against a Catholic politician. That instance was when Archbishop Joseph Naumann publicly requested that then Gov. Kathleen Sebelius not receive Holy Communion due to her pro-abortion position. That's it, and though public, one can argue that this wasn't a disciplinary action - but that's beside the point. The point is, out of dozens of very prominent Catholics in the Congress and State Houses, there is ONLY one example of a bishop taking action in response to their dissent. [Here, the cardinal -archbishop of Manila allowed his Cathedral-Basilica to host the wedding anniversary Mass of pro-RH and dissident "theological charlatan" Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago! And she has the audacity to even teach the bishops what is the actual teaching of the Church in morals by giving her own heretical interpretation of the Second Vatican Council!]
Many faithful Catholics see a double standard here. [Me!] If public action is called for when prominent pro-life priests who have strayed from the path, surely there is an equal need to take a public stand against prominent pro-abortion Catholics who have dissented for years or even decades - and remain unrepentant to this very day.
***
Here actually, things are a bit slow if you ask me.
What has the CBCP done to the ilk of the Ateneo Jesuits? The liberals of Maryhill School of Theology and os St. Vincent School of Theology and of Euntes in Zamboanga City?
How about Catholic politicians who openly go against the teachings of the Church against artificial contraceptives?
Still waiting!
One thing, among the handful of things I admire with that despicable Church of Felix Manalo Ysagun, is that it is quick to give the boot to anyone who would go against their teachings.
Well, of course after giving them all kinds of threats.
Oh, yeah believe me I have friends who swear by this. And when I mean threats, I mean ALL THREATS.
Going back...
When do we see those dissidents made to pay for their crimes, eh?
Another first for me
I had visited the UP Parish Church (The Parish Church of the Holy Sacrifice) in UP Diliman yesterday and attended Holy Mass for the very first time. A lot of people were there for the Mass. Honestly, that was the first time I realized UP as being more Catholic than the Ateneo. Ha!
And it most of them in the pews are actually the YOUTH!
A church decked with the work of national artists, but quite frankly I am no fan of circular churches. Just not my preference.
But the place is teeming with religious art from Pinoy master artists.
And that is one reason why wrecknovators of Vatican II cannot do anything about.
Quite a consolation actually.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
More Pinoys still trust the Catholic Church
From UCANews
***
OVER half the people in a recent survey rank the Church among the most trusted institutions in the country, thereby highlighting the importance of its role in society, several bishops told Church-run Radio Veritas Monday. [Now what would the anti-Catholics in the MSM would say about it, eh?]
“It shows the Church is important to people, especially in the lives of the poor,” said Bishop Arturo Bastes of Sorsogon.
“We are very happy with these survey results,” Bishop Bastes added. [Uhm...]
Public relations firm EON Inc released the results of a survey for its Philippine Trust Index on September 15 to measure the level of public trust in private, government and non-governmental organizations.
Results showed that 51 percent of respondents had “great trust” in the Church, EON revealed. The media was the next most-trusted institution, with 22 percent, while the government garnered the lowest trust rating at seven percent. [Now that is the reason why the media is going on an all out war against the Church. They want first place!]
EON said 500 people aged 25-60 years old, who had completed college education, were interviewed for the survey. [Oh no. How about those who did not have a college education? How about the poor? Remember how the RH people are in those parts of society? And how they shape anti-Catholic sentiments?]
Bishop Bastes praised people for their faith in “divine intervention.”
This enables them to trust the Church “despite its defects,” he said.
Most interviews were conducted before the controversy over motor vehicle gifts to bishops by the government lottery office.
Archbishop Antonio Ledesma of Cagayan de Oro said he believes people trust the Church because they recognize its attempts to uphold morals and faith.
***
Attitudes are born from perceptions.
And perceptions are shaped by the media which the Church first built.
That is how the devil works.
So, as the old saying goes,
Don't believe everything you see on TV.
***
OVER half the people in a recent survey rank the Church among the most trusted institutions in the country, thereby highlighting the importance of its role in society, several bishops told Church-run Radio Veritas Monday. [Now what would the anti-Catholics in the MSM would say about it, eh?]
“It shows the Church is important to people, especially in the lives of the poor,” said Bishop Arturo Bastes of Sorsogon.
“We are very happy with these survey results,” Bishop Bastes added. [Uhm...]
Public relations firm EON Inc released the results of a survey for its Philippine Trust Index on September 15 to measure the level of public trust in private, government and non-governmental organizations.
Results showed that 51 percent of respondents had “great trust” in the Church, EON revealed. The media was the next most-trusted institution, with 22 percent, while the government garnered the lowest trust rating at seven percent. [Now that is the reason why the media is going on an all out war against the Church. They want first place!]
EON said 500 people aged 25-60 years old, who had completed college education, were interviewed for the survey. [Oh no. How about those who did not have a college education? How about the poor? Remember how the RH people are in those parts of society? And how they shape anti-Catholic sentiments?]
Bishop Bastes praised people for their faith in “divine intervention.”
This enables them to trust the Church “despite its defects,” he said.
Most interviews were conducted before the controversy over motor vehicle gifts to bishops by the government lottery office.
Archbishop Antonio Ledesma of Cagayan de Oro said he believes people trust the Church because they recognize its attempts to uphold morals and faith.
***
Attitudes are born from perceptions.
And perceptions are shaped by the media which the Church first built.
That is how the devil works.
So, as the old saying goes,
Don't believe everything you see on TV.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Request for prayers: New parish priest
Sent by my good friend Jay Balza of Veritatem Facientes in Caritate blog:
***
Readers of The Pinoy Catholic will be included in these Masses.
***
The Traditional Latin Mass apostolate of the Mother of Perpetual Help Oratory (Santa Clara) and St. Margaret Mary (Oakland) invite you to two special Masses in the Extraordinary Form this weekend (Sept. 17 & 18) as we bid farewell to Canon Jean Marie Moreau (who is moving to the Oratory of St. Anthony of Padua in New Jersey) and welcome Canon Henry Fragelli.***
Solemn High Mass
Celebrant: Canon Matthew Talarico, Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest
Shrine of Our Lady of Peace
2800 Mission College Blvd., Santa Clara, CA
Saturday, September 17, 2011, 10 AM
Rosary procession around the Shrine follows Mass.
Pontifical Solemn Mass
Celebrant: Bishop Salvatore Cordileone (Diocese of Oakland)
St. Margaret Mary's Church
1219 Excelsior Avenue
Oakland, CA 94610
Sunday, September 18, 2011, 12:30pm
Reception after Mass at the churchyard.
Readers of The Pinoy Catholic will be included in these Masses.
Clarificatory Statement about the case of Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life
Washington, DC (16 September 2011): The following statement was issued today by Judie Brown, president of American Life League:
After erroneous media reports surfaced that Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests of Life had been suspended by his local bishop and accused of wrongdoing in running the pro-life ministry, his many supporters rushed to his defense. Statements and counterstatements became media brushfires in pro-life circles as pro-abortionists and anti-Catholics rubbed their hands in satisfaction.
The problem, now mostly lost in the rush to judgment of who has unjustly accused whom of what, is that Bishop Zurek never suspended our friend Father Pavone nor accused him of any actual wrongdoing. Further statements from Monsignor Harold Waldow, Vicar of Clergy for the Diocese of Amarillo, emphasizing that Father Pavone is not "being charged with any malfeasance or being accused of any wrong doing with the financial matters" have not quieted calls for action regarding some unfair conspiracy against a respected pro-life leader.
In witnessing the general reaction over the last few days concerning the situation in Amarillo, I have been struck by the failure of many involved to recognize that this is not a political situation involving some person in an elective office, but is, instead, a matter of a Catholic bishop and a priest within his diocese. [a purely internal matter?]
The diocese has made it clear that it is not accusing the priest of any wrong doing but is exercising its ecclesiastical obligation and prerogative to ask one of its priests to come back to the diocese for a time to deal with some questions the diocese has.
Having known Father Pavone for many years and, in fact, having helped launch the nation-wide operation of his pro-life ministry, I have always respected his work for the babies and I continue to do so.
As founder of one of those "other" organizations to which Fr. Pavone referred that have"sometimes been critical of the Church hierarchy or other institutions within the Church," I am aware perhaps more than most how a misconstrued statement or criticism can take on a life, and path, of its own.
I ask that all pro-lifers show the respect that the office of the bishop deserves and refrain from creating a public spectacle filled with demands, letters of condemnation, demonstrations or other efforts to create public pressure for a secular solution to what, in the end, is a Church matter.
This is a time for prayer: prayer for the bishop; prayer for the priest; and prayer for the babies. I ask the entire pro-life community to put aside secular action and join me in praying for a speedy and just resolution.
A rush to judgment can run in both directions.
***
In other words, if we are true pro-lifers who fight for the right of the unborn to live, then let us show the decency and courtesy the office of the bishop, successor of the apostle deserves, especially at a time when he is exercising the authority, rights and privilege that his office holds.
Let us pray for Fr. Frank and his bishop.
Period.
After erroneous media reports surfaced that Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests of Life had been suspended by his local bishop and accused of wrongdoing in running the pro-life ministry, his many supporters rushed to his defense. Statements and counterstatements became media brushfires in pro-life circles as pro-abortionists and anti-Catholics rubbed their hands in satisfaction.
The problem, now mostly lost in the rush to judgment of who has unjustly accused whom of what, is that Bishop Zurek never suspended our friend Father Pavone nor accused him of any actual wrongdoing. Further statements from Monsignor Harold Waldow, Vicar of Clergy for the Diocese of Amarillo, emphasizing that Father Pavone is not "being charged with any malfeasance or being accused of any wrong doing with the financial matters" have not quieted calls for action regarding some unfair conspiracy against a respected pro-life leader.
In witnessing the general reaction over the last few days concerning the situation in Amarillo, I have been struck by the failure of many involved to recognize that this is not a political situation involving some person in an elective office, but is, instead, a matter of a Catholic bishop and a priest within his diocese. [a purely internal matter?]
The diocese has made it clear that it is not accusing the priest of any wrong doing but is exercising its ecclesiastical obligation and prerogative to ask one of its priests to come back to the diocese for a time to deal with some questions the diocese has.
Having known Father Pavone for many years and, in fact, having helped launch the nation-wide operation of his pro-life ministry, I have always respected his work for the babies and I continue to do so.
As founder of one of those "other" organizations to which Fr. Pavone referred that have"sometimes been critical of the Church hierarchy or other institutions within the Church," I am aware perhaps more than most how a misconstrued statement or criticism can take on a life, and path, of its own.
I ask that all pro-lifers show the respect that the office of the bishop deserves and refrain from creating a public spectacle filled with demands, letters of condemnation, demonstrations or other efforts to create public pressure for a secular solution to what, in the end, is a Church matter.
This is a time for prayer: prayer for the bishop; prayer for the priest; and prayer for the babies. I ask the entire pro-life community to put aside secular action and join me in praying for a speedy and just resolution.
A rush to judgment can run in both directions.
***
In other words, if we are true pro-lifers who fight for the right of the unborn to live, then let us show the decency and courtesy the office of the bishop, successor of the apostle deserves, especially at a time when he is exercising the authority, rights and privilege that his office holds.
Let us pray for Fr. Frank and his bishop.
Period.
Keep it coming Sen. Miriam Santiago!
I love it when fools keep on blabbering in public making a bigger fool out of themselves.
From CBCP for Life
***
MANILA, September 17, 2011–If the pro-RH senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago did some more research (instead of parroting old and disproved anti-Catholic rhetoric), she would be surprised to find out that one of the fiercest critics of Nicolaus Copernicus was not a cardinal or a bishop, but Martin Luther.
Here was what the father of Protestantism said about Copernicus: “There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! [Much like Luther himself and Miriam! hehehe] The fool wants to turn the whole art [?!] of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.” [Uhm...]
It would probably come as a surprise to the senator that no less than a cardinal had to convince the Polish scientist in 1536 to publish his heliocentric theory. When he finally gave in to the appeals of supporters led by Cardinal Schonberg and Bishop Giese, Copernicus decided to dedicate his book, “On the Revolutions of the Celestial Bodies,” to Pope Paul III. [But! But! But! The multi-award winning fiesty senator educated in some of the best universities of the world says Copernicus was tortured by the Church! Unless, you have the same degrees as herself, or have received the same awards as herself....or been elected to public office as herself.....we are all SO WRONG!]
If there was anyone dogmatic and biblically rigid here, it was the Lutherans, not the Catholic Church. In fact, those given the charge of publishing Copernicus’ monumental work were fearful of Luther and Melanchthon that they had to emphasize on the title page that heliocentricity was just a “hypothesis.”
Here was what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy had to say about Copernicus: “Pope Clement VII (r. 1523–1534) had reacted favorably to a talk about Copernicus’s theories, rewarding the speaker with a rare manuscript. There is no indication of how Pope Paul III, to whom On the Revolutions was dedicated reacted; however, a trusted advisor, Bartolomeo Spina of Pisa (1474–1546) intended to condemn it but fell ill and died before his plan was carried out … Thus, in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy.” [But! But! But! The multi-award winning fiesty senator educated in some of the best universities of the world says Copernicus was tortured by the Church! Unless, you have the same degrees as herself, or have received the same awards as herself....or been elected to public office as herself.....we are all SO WRONG!]
Copernicus, born 1473, began his studies in Krakow, and then went to Bologna to study canon law. Later on he went to Padua to study medicine.
He moved within ecclesiastical circles (some think he became a priest) and was at one point the administrator of a diocese. He died in 1543 out of illness – definitely not tortured – receiving the first copy of his book right on is deathbed. [But! But! But! The multi-award winning fiesty senator educated in some of the best universities of the world says Copernicus was tortured by the Church! Unless, you have the same degrees as herself, or have received the same awards as herself....or been elected to public office as herself.....we are all SO WRONG!]
If not for the urgings of Catholic clergy, the most prominent supporters of the heliocentric theory (Cardinal Schonberg was in fact willing to pay for publication), Copernicus’ great work would have been consigned to the dustbin, victim to the dogmatism of the Lutherans. [But! But! But! The multi-award winning fiesty senator educated in some of the best universities of the world says Copernicus was tortured by the Church! Unless, you have the same degrees as herself, or have received the same awards as herself....or been elected to public office as herself.....we are all SO WRONG!]
For all her penchant for historical references, Santiago’s choice of Copernicus as a supposed victim of Catholic persecution falls flat, revealing the senator’s shallow appreciation of Church history. She calls Church teachings “historically conditioned.” But it seems she is historically challenged. [because the CICM theologians at Maryhill School of Theology conditioned her! Right Fathers?]
Or did she confuse Copernicus for Galileo? While Galileo was tried by a Church tribunal, it was not for believing in heliocentrism but for misappropriating theology and biblical interpretation. [BINGO! Because Galileo was crossing the line. He was not only challenging the Bible's scientific infallibility, but also its theological infallibility!] But, better luck next time, Madame Senator, Galileo was not tortured. If there’s any proof of the Church’s benevolence, it’s the fact that Galileo was buried in the Basilica of Santa Croce in Florence. [I guess she does not know that, because she did not read it in Dan Brown's books, Red Tani did not tweet her about it, Carlos Celdran forgot to tell it to her, and she was absent in one of her Church History classes at MST.]
The next time Santiago proclaims something as gospel truth, people should watch out and remember that once upon a time she promised to jump out of a plane if Joseph Estrada got kicked out of the presidency. Estrada was kicked out, alright, with the help of the Church. All Santiago had to say after that was: “I lied!” (Dominic Francisco)
***
Miriam has a penchant to cheap shots. She did that last month.
I think it is high time that a Church historian and theologian put a gag on this arrogant wacko.
Unfortunately, this wacko is a senator of the republic whose salary are being paid by tax payers like you and me.
And imagine the enormous work the historian and priest would do to gaga her.
It's like plugging a sink hole.
Gargantuan!
A tranquilizer gun would suffice I think, no?
But on second thought....
I think Miriam is a train-wreck that we all love to see self-destruct right under our very own eyes!
Like watching WWE programming don't you think?
CHAIR SHOT!!!
Keep it coming Sen. Santiago!
We're loving it!
From CBCP for Life
***
MANILA, September 17, 2011–If the pro-RH senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago did some more research (instead of parroting old and disproved anti-Catholic rhetoric), she would be surprised to find out that one of the fiercest critics of Nicolaus Copernicus was not a cardinal or a bishop, but Martin Luther.
Here was what the father of Protestantism said about Copernicus: “There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! [Much like Luther himself and Miriam! hehehe] The fool wants to turn the whole art [?!] of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.” [Uhm...]
It would probably come as a surprise to the senator that no less than a cardinal had to convince the Polish scientist in 1536 to publish his heliocentric theory. When he finally gave in to the appeals of supporters led by Cardinal Schonberg and Bishop Giese, Copernicus decided to dedicate his book, “On the Revolutions of the Celestial Bodies,” to Pope Paul III. [But! But! But! The multi-award winning fiesty senator educated in some of the best universities of the world says Copernicus was tortured by the Church! Unless, you have the same degrees as herself, or have received the same awards as herself....or been elected to public office as herself.....we are all SO WRONG!]
If there was anyone dogmatic and biblically rigid here, it was the Lutherans, not the Catholic Church. In fact, those given the charge of publishing Copernicus’ monumental work were fearful of Luther and Melanchthon that they had to emphasize on the title page that heliocentricity was just a “hypothesis.”
Here was what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy had to say about Copernicus: “Pope Clement VII (r. 1523–1534) had reacted favorably to a talk about Copernicus’s theories, rewarding the speaker with a rare manuscript. There is no indication of how Pope Paul III, to whom On the Revolutions was dedicated reacted; however, a trusted advisor, Bartolomeo Spina of Pisa (1474–1546) intended to condemn it but fell ill and died before his plan was carried out … Thus, in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy.” [But! But! But! The multi-award winning fiesty senator educated in some of the best universities of the world says Copernicus was tortured by the Church! Unless, you have the same degrees as herself, or have received the same awards as herself....or been elected to public office as herself.....we are all SO WRONG!]
Copernicus, born 1473, began his studies in Krakow, and then went to Bologna to study canon law. Later on he went to Padua to study medicine.
He moved within ecclesiastical circles (some think he became a priest) and was at one point the administrator of a diocese. He died in 1543 out of illness – definitely not tortured – receiving the first copy of his book right on is deathbed. [But! But! But! The multi-award winning fiesty senator educated in some of the best universities of the world says Copernicus was tortured by the Church! Unless, you have the same degrees as herself, or have received the same awards as herself....or been elected to public office as herself.....we are all SO WRONG!]
If not for the urgings of Catholic clergy, the most prominent supporters of the heliocentric theory (Cardinal Schonberg was in fact willing to pay for publication), Copernicus’ great work would have been consigned to the dustbin, victim to the dogmatism of the Lutherans. [But! But! But! The multi-award winning fiesty senator educated in some of the best universities of the world says Copernicus was tortured by the Church! Unless, you have the same degrees as herself, or have received the same awards as herself....or been elected to public office as herself.....we are all SO WRONG!]
For all her penchant for historical references, Santiago’s choice of Copernicus as a supposed victim of Catholic persecution falls flat, revealing the senator’s shallow appreciation of Church history. She calls Church teachings “historically conditioned.” But it seems she is historically challenged. [because the CICM theologians at Maryhill School of Theology conditioned her! Right Fathers?]
Or did she confuse Copernicus for Galileo? While Galileo was tried by a Church tribunal, it was not for believing in heliocentrism but for misappropriating theology and biblical interpretation. [BINGO! Because Galileo was crossing the line. He was not only challenging the Bible's scientific infallibility, but also its theological infallibility!] But, better luck next time, Madame Senator, Galileo was not tortured. If there’s any proof of the Church’s benevolence, it’s the fact that Galileo was buried in the Basilica of Santa Croce in Florence. [I guess she does not know that, because she did not read it in Dan Brown's books, Red Tani did not tweet her about it, Carlos Celdran forgot to tell it to her, and she was absent in one of her Church History classes at MST.]
The next time Santiago proclaims something as gospel truth, people should watch out and remember that once upon a time she promised to jump out of a plane if Joseph Estrada got kicked out of the presidency. Estrada was kicked out, alright, with the help of the Church. All Santiago had to say after that was: “I lied!” (Dominic Francisco)
***
Miriam has a penchant to cheap shots. She did that last month.
I think it is high time that a Church historian and theologian put a gag on this arrogant wacko.
Unfortunately, this wacko is a senator of the republic whose salary are being paid by tax payers like you and me.
And imagine the enormous work the historian and priest would do to gaga her.
It's like plugging a sink hole.
Gargantuan!
A tranquilizer gun would suffice I think, no?
I think Miriam is a train-wreck that we all love to see self-destruct right under our very own eyes!
Like watching WWE programming don't you think?
CHAIR SHOT!!!
Keep it coming Sen. Santiago!
We're loving it!
Friday, September 16, 2011
Sen. Miriam really needs her medicine!
From the Philippine Star.
***
TO Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, scientist Nicolaus Copernicus and supporters of the controversial Reproductive Health bill have something in common – both are “tortured” for believing in something that the Catholic Church is opposing. [Uhm. What was that?!]
The feisty [arrogant, bren...]senator, who is the principal author of Senate Bill 2865, found a welcoming audience at the UP College of Law – her alma mater – which held a forum Thursday attended by throngs of students and advocates on the controversial bill.
Santiago’s remarks drew applause when she made reference to the fate of Copernicus, who was executed for saying the earth revolved around the sun at a time when the Church’s dogma was that the earth was the center of the universe. [A lot of STUPID things here. First, Copernicus was never executed. He died a peaceful death after suffering a stroke. He, like Galileo, is buried inside a Catholic church. Is that the place to bury someone who fell into disrepute with the Church? Maybe Celdran and Santiago, but not Copernicus, who was also a canon of Warmia. Second, paleocentrism was, is and will never ever be DOGMA! Geez! And this is the woman who kept bragging about her unfinished degree at Maryhill School of Theology! Now you know what kind of graduates they have there!]
“They (Church) tortured him (Copernicus). Now they’re torturing us… What the…,” she said, eliciting laughter from the audience. [Uhm...there is a medical term for those who think people are after them.]
According to Santiago, majority of Catholic countries have passed their versions of the RH bill, and that the Philippines is among the only six of 48 recently profiled not to have it.
Santiago cited even Italy “where the Vatican is located” has it. [So?!]
To Santiago, it is even inaccurate to use the term “Catholic Church” in referring to the anti-RH group.
“The more accurate term is ‘Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines,’ because the CBCP is not the entirety of the Catholic Church,” she said. [Well, how about the Knights of Columbus? Couples for Christ? Lay Catholics who are members of Filipinos For Life, of Pro-Life Philippines? So, are they members of the CBCP?]
“Under the more enlightened philosophy of Vatican 2, the Church is not the pope or the bishops or the priests,” Santiago added. [Nor is it about MST.]
***
I just can imagine why the students were clapping and laughing, as mentioned above.
This image comes to mind.
If you have politicians like Miriam Santiago elected into office, then believe me folks, I will never ever be frustrated if someone like this guy becoming senator.
Well, the only difference with him and Miriam is that Mr. Bean is acting like a fool, while Miriam does not have to try hard. It comes so naturally, she deserves an Oscar for it.
***
TO Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, scientist Nicolaus Copernicus and supporters of the controversial Reproductive Health bill have something in common – both are “tortured” for believing in something that the Catholic Church is opposing. [Uhm. What was that?!]
The feisty [arrogant, bren...]senator, who is the principal author of Senate Bill 2865, found a welcoming audience at the UP College of Law – her alma mater – which held a forum Thursday attended by throngs of students and advocates on the controversial bill.
Santiago’s remarks drew applause when she made reference to the fate of Copernicus, who was executed for saying the earth revolved around the sun at a time when the Church’s dogma was that the earth was the center of the universe. [A lot of STUPID things here. First, Copernicus was never executed. He died a peaceful death after suffering a stroke. He, like Galileo, is buried inside a Catholic church. Is that the place to bury someone who fell into disrepute with the Church? Maybe Celdran and Santiago, but not Copernicus, who was also a canon of Warmia. Second, paleocentrism was, is and will never ever be DOGMA! Geez! And this is the woman who kept bragging about her unfinished degree at Maryhill School of Theology! Now you know what kind of graduates they have there!]
“They (Church) tortured him (Copernicus). Now they’re torturing us… What the…,” she said, eliciting laughter from the audience. [Uhm...there is a medical term for those who think people are after them.]
According to Santiago, majority of Catholic countries have passed their versions of the RH bill, and that the Philippines is among the only six of 48 recently profiled not to have it.
Santiago cited even Italy “where the Vatican is located” has it. [So?!]
To Santiago, it is even inaccurate to use the term “Catholic Church” in referring to the anti-RH group.
“The more accurate term is ‘Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines,’ because the CBCP is not the entirety of the Catholic Church,” she said. [Well, how about the Knights of Columbus? Couples for Christ? Lay Catholics who are members of Filipinos For Life, of Pro-Life Philippines? So, are they members of the CBCP?]
“Under the more enlightened philosophy of Vatican 2, the Church is not the pope or the bishops or the priests,” Santiago added. [Nor is it about MST.]
***
I just can imagine why the students were clapping and laughing, as mentioned above.
This image comes to mind.
If you have politicians like Miriam Santiago elected into office, then believe me folks, I will never ever be frustrated if someone like this guy becoming senator.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
COMMUNIQUE CONCERNING THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X
Seems like there is progress!
***
VATICAN CITY, 14 SEP 2011 (VIS) - At midday today the Holy See Press Office released the following communique concerning the postion of the Society of St. Pius X:
"On 14 September at the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Joseph Levada, prefect of the congregation and president of the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei'; Archbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer S.J., secretary of the congregation, and Msgr. Guido Pozzo, secretary of the pontifical commission, met with Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, who was accompanied by Fr. Niklaus Pfluger and Fr. Alain-Marc Nely, respectively first and second assistant general to the society.
"Following the appeal of 15 December 2008, addressed by the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, the Holy Father decided to remove the excommunication against the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre. At the same time, he approved the opening of discussions with the society in order to clarify doctrinal problems and to heal the existing rift.
"In order to put the Holy Father's instructions into effect, a joint study commission was set up, composed of experts from the Society of St. Pius X and from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who met in Rome on eight occasions between October 2009 and April 2011. Their discussions, which aimed to identify and study the essential doctrinal difficulties in the controversial issues, had the result of clarifying the positions of the two sides and their respective motivations.
"While bearing in mind the concerns and demands presented by the Society of St. Pius X about protecting the integrity of the Catholic faith against Vatican Council II's 'hermeneutic of rupture' with Tradition (a theme addressed by Pope Benedict XVI in his address to the Roman Curia on 22 December 2005), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith maintains that the fundamental basis for achieving full reconciliation with the Apostolic See is the acceptance of the text of the Doctrinal Preamble, which was handed over during a meeting on 14 September 2011. The Preamble defines certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church Magisterium and 'sentire cum Ecclesia'. At the same time, it leaves open to legitimate discussion the examination and theological explanation of individual expressions and formulations contained in the documents of Vatican Council II and later Magisterium.
"At the same meeting, certain suggestions were made for a canonical solution to the position of the Society of St. Pius X, with a view to achieving the desired reconciliation"
***
VATICAN CITY, 14 SEP 2011 (VIS) - At midday today the Holy See Press Office released the following communique concerning the postion of the Society of St. Pius X:
"On 14 September at the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal William Joseph Levada, prefect of the congregation and president of the Pontifical Commission 'Ecclesia Dei'; Archbishop Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer S.J., secretary of the congregation, and Msgr. Guido Pozzo, secretary of the pontifical commission, met with Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X, who was accompanied by Fr. Niklaus Pfluger and Fr. Alain-Marc Nely, respectively first and second assistant general to the society.
"Following the appeal of 15 December 2008, addressed by the superior general of the Society of St. Pius X to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, the Holy Father decided to remove the excommunication against the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre. At the same time, he approved the opening of discussions with the society in order to clarify doctrinal problems and to heal the existing rift.
"In order to put the Holy Father's instructions into effect, a joint study commission was set up, composed of experts from the Society of St. Pius X and from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who met in Rome on eight occasions between October 2009 and April 2011. Their discussions, which aimed to identify and study the essential doctrinal difficulties in the controversial issues, had the result of clarifying the positions of the two sides and their respective motivations.
"While bearing in mind the concerns and demands presented by the Society of St. Pius X about protecting the integrity of the Catholic faith against Vatican Council II's 'hermeneutic of rupture' with Tradition (a theme addressed by Pope Benedict XVI in his address to the Roman Curia on 22 December 2005), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith maintains that the fundamental basis for achieving full reconciliation with the Apostolic See is the acceptance of the text of the Doctrinal Preamble, which was handed over during a meeting on 14 September 2011. The Preamble defines certain doctrinal principles and criteria for the interpretation Catholic doctrine, which are necessary to ensure faithfulness to the Church Magisterium and 'sentire cum Ecclesia'. At the same time, it leaves open to legitimate discussion the examination and theological explanation of individual expressions and formulations contained in the documents of Vatican Council II and later Magisterium.
"At the same meeting, certain suggestions were made for a canonical solution to the position of the Society of St. Pius X, with a view to achieving the desired reconciliation"
Wear your clerical attire in public!
From UCANews
***
A Catholic bishop today called on all clergy to observe the Church’s dress code, especially when they appear in public “as an integral part of priestly decorum.” [Do I hear an "Amen"?]
Bishop Leonardo Medroso of Tagbilaran, a canon lawyer, said ecclesiastical garb is not the external sign of the priesthood but an indicator of the “spiritual and priestly life” of the person concerned. [It is a mark of who the person is, much like how a school or company uniform is.]
Some “shrink” from wearing the proper attire, he noted, preferring to go around in public in ordinary clothes.
This does not mean they are necessarily ashamed of their identity as priests or that they have a weak sense of their clerical identity, he said. [Uhm...My personal experience with those priests and religious who do so actually have this reason.]
“Rather, they do not like to get attention from people, who because of the attire, afford them privileged treatment, or to be looked down on or given suspicious glances,” Bishop Medroso said. [or they just don't want to be acknowledged as priests in public.]
“They prefer to be left alone, free and unperturbed,” he added. [Uhm.....]
The real purpose of priestly attire, according to the bishop, is to serve as public testimony that the one wearing ecclesiastical dress is an ordained minister. [And bingo was his name-o!]
That is why, Bishop Medroso says, “the Church is insistent that her ordained ministers wear the ecclesiastical garb.”
“His [priestly] life, his behavior, his prayer life, his decorum, his language … all of them has to communicate and articulate the reality of the priesthood,” Bishop Medroso said. [and most of those who do not wear them actually don't act the way they are supposed to? just asking.]
Clerical attire approved by the Philippine Catholic hierarchy is cassock or religious habit; clergyman’s suit; trousers of dark one-tone color, with the clerical collar. [See examples below.]
The shirt, meanwhile, may also be either a polo or a formal embroidered Philippine shirt, with the distinctive cross. [Uhm...]
“It is the official garb that is to be used by the clergy in their social life, the ecclesiastical uniform is supposed to be worn by them during public appearances,” the prelate said.
***
Are these perfect examples?
***
A Catholic bishop today called on all clergy to observe the Church’s dress code, especially when they appear in public “as an integral part of priestly decorum.” [Do I hear an "Amen"?]
Bishop Leonardo Medroso of Tagbilaran, a canon lawyer, said ecclesiastical garb is not the external sign of the priesthood but an indicator of the “spiritual and priestly life” of the person concerned. [It is a mark of who the person is, much like how a school or company uniform is.]
Some “shrink” from wearing the proper attire, he noted, preferring to go around in public in ordinary clothes.
This does not mean they are necessarily ashamed of their identity as priests or that they have a weak sense of their clerical identity, he said. [Uhm...My personal experience with those priests and religious who do so actually have this reason.]
“Rather, they do not like to get attention from people, who because of the attire, afford them privileged treatment, or to be looked down on or given suspicious glances,” Bishop Medroso said. [or they just don't want to be acknowledged as priests in public.]
“They prefer to be left alone, free and unperturbed,” he added. [Uhm.....]
The real purpose of priestly attire, according to the bishop, is to serve as public testimony that the one wearing ecclesiastical dress is an ordained minister. [And bingo was his name-o!]
That is why, Bishop Medroso says, “the Church is insistent that her ordained ministers wear the ecclesiastical garb.”
“His [priestly] life, his behavior, his prayer life, his decorum, his language … all of them has to communicate and articulate the reality of the priesthood,” Bishop Medroso said. [and most of those who do not wear them actually don't act the way they are supposed to? just asking.]
Clerical attire approved by the Philippine Catholic hierarchy is cassock or religious habit; clergyman’s suit; trousers of dark one-tone color, with the clerical collar. [See examples below.]
The shirt, meanwhile, may also be either a polo or a formal embroidered Philippine shirt, with the distinctive cross. [Uhm...]
“It is the official garb that is to be used by the clergy in their social life, the ecclesiastical uniform is supposed to be worn by them during public appearances,” the prelate said.
***
Are these perfect examples?
Fr. Paul Van Parijs, cicm
Fr. Anscar Chupungco, osb
Fr. Eugene Flameygh, cicm
By the way, these priests are some of the Founders of our favorite theology school, Maryhill School of Theology.
Or this one?
The so-called "peace advocate" Fr. Eliseo Mercado, Jr., OMI. Peace advocate my @$$! All this guy did is to name drop famous people he calls his "friends". Ask him about Nur Misuari and the Ampatuans!
Or this other one?
Fr. Robert Reyes
He is in public right?
Or these ones?
Some of the Kape't Pandasal priests
Fr. Jboy Gonzales, sj
Our "fave" bishop, Bishop Chito Tagle, admirer of Martin Luther
In the office or even at school, the person who does not want to wear the uniform is someone who does not want to be associated with what the uniform or garb they are wearing signifies.
To fans of these men, don't give me that "what's important is what is in the inside." crap
If that be the case, ask some of these men to stop insisting on their degrees and awards, because I know most of these do insist on it.
If that be case, isn't a a bad case of "holier than thou" because you are supposing that those who wear the clerical garbs are Pharisaical in their practice? How sure are you that they are indeed "crunchy on the outside and juicy on the inside" ?
So does that mean that these people are not holy?
Just asking.
Why just not wear it?
Afraid to be recognized I guess.